O  SANTA  BARBARA  O 


c 

THE 

UNIVERSITY 

s 

> 
< 

I 

£ 

I 

i 

i 

»  SANTA  BARBARA 


V8V9aV9  ViNVS  o 


9 


5Pi 


.  o  AiisaaAiNn  3hi  <> 


o   V!1V98V9  ViNVS 


s 


o     AllSa3AlNn    3Hi 


o    THE  UNIVERSITY 


B 


•  SANTA  BARBARA  <> 


^ 

"1 

J 

In 

o    THE  IIBRARY  OF    o 


o   V*)V9»V9  VINVS 


/jM^I^\CA/i        l^AC^        L.aA(^/?€<'J    ^     ^:^ ^     J^'   f/eAVO^SCO     1^/  £ 


Proceedings 


OF  THE 


Fifth  American  Peace  Congress 

HELD   IN 

San  Francisco,  California 
October  10-13,  1915 

As  THE  Sixth  and  Last  Congress  of  the 
Committee  of  One  Hundred 

(Appointed  by  the  Federal   Council  of  The  Churches  of 

Christ  in  America  to  have  charge  of  the  Religious 

Activities  during  the  Panama-Pacific 

International    Exposition) 

and  under  the  auspices  of 
The  Church  Peace   Union — The  American  Peace  Society 

ASSISTED    BY 

The  American  League  to  Limit  Armaments — The  American  Peace 

Centenary  Committee — The  League  to  Enforce  Peace — The 

San  Francisco  Federated  Peace  Committee  for  IQIS, 

and  The  Woman's  Peace  Party 

Edited  by 

H.  H.  Bell  and  Robert  C.  Root 

Joint   Secretaries   of   the   Congress 

Published  by 

The  Church  Peace  Union 

70  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City 

Price,  One  Dollar 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Foreword     5 

Opening   Prayer.     Edward  L.   Parsons,  D.D 7 

Telegraphic  Greetings 8 

Wh?i  Makes  a  Nation  Great?    Frederick  Lynch 9 

Internationalism  and  Democracy.    James  A.  Macdonald 13 

The  Patriotism  of  Peace.     Matthew  S.  Hughes 17 

The  Catholic  Church  and  Peace.     Edward  J.  Hanna 31 

The  Epic  of  Peace.     Martin  A.  Meyer 36 

War,  Business  and  Insurance.     David  Starr  Jordan 43 

A  League  to  Enforce  Peace.    Francis  B.  Loomis 58 

The  Exposition  and  World  Peace.    Herbert  S.  Houston 62 

Landlordism  the  Cause  of  War.    Walter  MacArthur 71 

World  Organization.    Henry  La  Fontaine 85 

Why  Labor  Opposes  War.    James  W.  Mullen 95 

International  Misunderstandings.    Kiyo  Sue  Inui 98 

Should   There   Be   Military   Training    in    Public    Schools?     Louis    P. 

LOCHNER      ^^ 

A  Call  of  Old  Glory  for  Heroism.    Eva  Marshall  Shontz 117 

America's  Danger  and  Opportunity.    Lucia  Ames  Mead 124 

World    Unity— The    Goal    of    Human    Progress.     Mirza    Ali    Kuli 

Khan    134 

The    Neglected    Aspect    of    Japanese-American    Relations.     Yamato 

Ichihashi     143 

The  New  Orient  and  America's  Needed  New  Oriental  Policy.     Sidney 

L.    GuLicK    148 

Constructive  Work  for  Peace.     Charles  S.  Macfarland 153 

Two   Successful   American   Models   for  Europe's   Imitation.     Edward 

Berwick    1^ 

The  Temperate  Americas  and  the  World's  Work.     Bailey  Willis 165 

The  Treaty  of  Ghent  and  the  Hundred  Years  of   Peace.     Edwin  H. 

Hughes    1' "^ 

Officers  and  Committees 1' 7 

Delegates   and    Organizations 178 

Program    1°^ 


FOREWORD 

THE  International  Peace  Congress,  held  at  San  Francisco, 
October  10th  and  13th  inclusive,  1915,  was  but  one  of  the  more 
than  Nine  Hundred  Congresses  and  Conventions  held  in  the 
Golden  Gate  City  during  the  Exposition  year.  Never  before  in  one 
year  and  in  one  place  were  so  many  Congresses  held. 

The  great  Exposition,  which  drew  to  itself  millions  of  visitors  from 
all  parts  of  the  world,  afforded  special  opportunity  for  this  up-to-date 
Peace  Congress,  as  also  for  the  world-wide  publicity  of  its  proceedings. 
The  dominating  idea  of  the  Exposition  as  expressed  on  every  notable 
occasion  was  World  Peace. 

This  greatest  of  Peace  Congresses  became  possible  by  reason  of  two 
main  contributing  factors.  First,  by  the  generosity  of  the  Church  Peace 
Union  in  giving,  expressly  for  Peace  Work,  to  the  funds  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  One  Hundred  on  Religious  Activities  during  the  Panama-Pacific 
International  Exposition,  the  sum  of  Five  Thousand  Dollars.  Second,  by 
the  willingness  of  the  American  Peace  Society  to  combine  its  Fifth  Peace 
Congress  (which  it  had  planned  to  hold  in  Washington,  D.  C.)  with  this 
Congress.  This  dual  action  of  these  our  two  greatest  American  Peace 
Societies  quickly  secured  the  hearty  co-operation  of  all  other  Peace 
Organizations,  thus  making  it  possible  even  while  all  Europe  was 
plunged  in  the  most  appalling  war  of  all  history,  to  concentrate  in  one 
powerful  impact  upon  the  public  mind  the  sanest  and  latest  Peace  thought 
of  the  most  forward  men  and  women  now  leading  in  the  all-absorbing, 
all-commanding  cause  of  World  Peace. 

That  this  Congress  was  timely;  that  its  program  met  public  expecta- 
tion; that  it  fully  justified  the  efforts  and  the  expense;  and  that  its 
platform  is  worthy,  is  thought-challenging  and  lifts  sane  horizon  for 
International  Peace;  who  that  rightly  studies  its  able  addresses  and 
weighs  its  platform  will  deny? 

Editors, 


OPENING   PRAYER 

Offered  by  the  Rev.  Edward  L.  Parsons,  D.D. 
Rector  St.  Mark's  Episcopal  Church,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

ALMIGHTY  and  Everlasting  God,  eternal  light  and  truth,  from 
whom  Cometh  the  heavenly  wisdom  which  is  pure  and  peaceable 
and  full  of  mercy  and  good  fruits,  we  beseech  Thee  to  fill  with 
Thy  light-giving  spirit  the  minds  and  hearts  of  Thy  servants  who  are  now 
gathered  together  to  set  forward  the  cause  of  Thy  peace  upon  earth. 
Grant  wisdom  to  those  who  speak  and  quick  responsive  hearts  to  those 
who  hear.  Guide  the  deliberations  of  this  Congress ;  exalt  its  utterances ; 
and  so  fashion  all  its  work  that  the  peoples  of  the  world  and  those  in 
authority  among  them  may  be  led  to  calmer  judgment  in  the  affairs  of  men 
and  to  clearer  vision  of  the  power  of  justice  and  truth  and  may  be  inspired 
to  deeper  faith  in  the  unity  of  mankind  in  Thee  their  God  and  Father. 

"O  Lord,  God  of  Hosts,  in  this  day  of  distress  of  nations,  when 
men's  hearts  faint  for  fear  and  expectation  of  that  which  is  to  come, 
we  beseech  Thee  to  have  mercy  upon  all  who  are  now  engaged  in  war. 
Receive  into  Thy  nearer  presence  the  souls  of  those  who  through  sick- 
ness, famine  or  battle  are  brought  to  death.  Give  courage  and  heavenly 
comfort  to  the  wounded  and  heal  them,  we  beseech  Thee.  Make 
swift  and  tender  those  who  minister  in  hospital  and  camp.  Look  with 
heart  of  love  upon  the  widowed  women  and  the  poor  and  starving 
and  orphaned  children.  Lord  have  mercy  upon  them  for  the  sake  of 
Him  who  was  born  of  a  woman  and  came  among  us  a  little  child; 
have  mercy  upon  them. 

"Ah,  Lord,  from  the  sin  of  men  this  cruel  and  wicked  war  has 
sprung.  The  souls  of  the  dead,  the  wounds  of  the  dying,  the  broken 
bodies  of  the  strong  men,  the  pitiful  estate  of  widows  and  orphans  cry 
aloud  to  Thee  for  vengeance.  Visit  with  the  flame  of  Thy  wrath  those 
who  in  wilfulness  or  pride  or  hatred  have  unsheathed  the  sword.  For- 
give of  Thy  great  mercy  the  millions  of  Thy  children,  laborer  and 
peasant,  toilers  in  factory  and  field  and  mine  who  in  the  bitter  conflict 
are  burning,  destroying,  slaying;  forgive  them  for  they  know  not 
what  they  do.  Forgive  the  race  hatreds,  the  jealousies,  the  unholy  greed 
of  wealth,  the  wicked  lust  of  land,  the  hollow  prayer  to  Thee  and  to 
Thy  Christ.     Forgive  and  guide  Thy  children  back  to  Thee. 

"Out  of  the  depths  we  cry  unto  Thee,  O  Lord,  supplicating  Thee  to 
turn  again  these  nations  into  the  way  of  peace.  We  pray  not  for  the 
peace  of  the  past,  the  peace  of  suspicion  and  jealousy  and  armed  might; 
but  that  out  of  this  hideous  conflict  Thou  wilt  enable  men  to  win  the 
establishment  of  righteousness  and  justice  and  the  peace  of  mutual  trust 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth.     O  Thou  who  hast  made  of  one  blood 


all  nations  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  the  face  of  the  whole  earth,  give 
undying  victory,  we  beseech  Thee,  to  the  spirit  of   brotherhood. 

"Finally  we  pray  Thee  to  rouse  our  own  nation  to  a  profound  con- 
viction of  its  own  mission  of  peace.  Put  from  us  greed  and  ambition, 
jealousy,  suspicion  and  doubt.  Give  to  us  patriotism  of  world-wide 
vision.  Increase  in  us  trust  in  our  brother  men  and  faith  in  the  power 
of  righteousness  and  truth.  Grant  that  armed  with  righteousness  and 
truth  and  trusting  in  the  sword  of  Thy  Spirit  we  may  nobly  strive  to 
lead  the  peoples  of  the  earth  into  one  brotherhood,  knitting  nation  to 
nation  in  the  fellowship  of  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

"For  this  Congress  of  Peace,  for  the  peace  of  Europe  and  for  the 
lasting  peace  of  the  world  we  offer  our  prayers  in  the  name  of  Him 
Whom  we  acknowledge  as  the  Prince  of  Peace,  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 


TELEGRAPHIC   GREETINGS 

Washington,  D.  C,  October  11,  1915 
Peace  Committee, 

San  Francisco,  Cal. 
"I  regret  exceedingly  that  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  participate  in 
your  meeting.  My  heart  is  with  you  in  your  efforts  to  promote  Universal 
Peace.  We  should  do  all  in  our  power  to  bring  the  European  war  to 
an  end;  but  if  we  cannot  yet  stay  the  hand  of  blood  over  there,  we 
should  at  least  cultivate  here  the  spirit  of  peace  and  oppose  any  policy 
which  could  stimulate  hatred  toward  other  nations  or  transplant  upon 
American  soil  the  theory  that  peace  can  be  either  insured  or  promoted 
by  force  and  fear." 

(Signed)     W.  J.  Bryan. 

Message  from  Count  Okuma,  Premier,  Japan 


What  Makes  a  Nation  Great? 
Frederick  Lynch,  D.D. 

THE  chief  reason  this  terrible  war  is  sweeping  the  world  is 
this :  When  we  act  as  individuals  toward  other  individuals 
we  act  as  Christians,  when  we  act  as  governments  toward 
other  governments  we  act  as  pagans.  Individuals  are  largely 
living  by  Christian  principles,  governments  by  pagan  principles. 
What  we  call  vices  and  crimes  in  men  we  praise  as  virtues  and 
noble  deeds  in  nations.  We  hang  men  for  committing  the  deeds 
for  which  we  crown  nations.  We  condemn  in  all  decent  men 
conduct  which  we  exalt  in  nations.  When  we  ask :  What  makes 
a  man  great?  we  mention  those  qualities  which  as  nations  we 
despise,  throw  aside  and  revile.  When  we  ask :  What  makes 
a  nation  great?  we  name  the  very  things  that  make  men  small, 
vile  and  cast-ofifs  from  all  respectable  society.  It  is  this  double 
standard  of  ethics,  one  for  men,  one  for  nations,  that  is  largely 
responsible  for  the  persistence  of  war.  It  will  cease  between 
nations  when  we  demand  of  them  the  same  high  rules  of  conduct 
that  we  demand  of  gentlemen.  Fights  between  individuals 
stopped  when  men  became  gentlemen.  To-day  men  are  gentle- 
men and  nations  are  rowdies. 

We  say  that  it  is  wrong  for  men  to  steal  from  each  other,  but 
we  praise  the  nation  that  can  steal  the  most.  Most  of  the  colonies' 
of  nations  were  deliberately  stolen,  and  no  one  ever  thought  of 
condemning  the  nations  doing  the  stealing  until  very  recent  years. 
Even  now  there  are  thousands  of  Christians  who  will  justify  a 
nation  going  to  war  for  expansion,  who  would  shoot  a  man  who 
began  killing  his  neighbors  on  that  plea.  Stealing  is  a  crime  for 
men,  a  virtue  in  nations. 

We  say  that  it  is  wrong  for  a  man  to  kill  his  neighbor,  we  say 
it  is  wrong  to  do  so  even  in  revenge,  or  to  get  certain  rights  even 
when  greatly  provoked.  We  make  it  the  most  heinous  crime.  In 
many  places  we  take  the  life  of  a  man  who  kills  another  man,  but, 
even  if  we  do  not  praise  the  nation  which  destroys  another,  as  once 
we  did  praise,  yet  millions  of  good  Christian  people  condone  it 
and  uphold,  by  their  lives  laid  down,  the  nation  which  does  it. 
We  have  the  spectacle  in  Europe  to-day  of  millions  of  Christian 


people  supporting  certain  nations  in  a  deliberate  act  of  destruc- 
tion for  which  they  would  have  imprisoned  any  individual  for  life. 
Wrong  for  men  to  kill  each  other ;  perfectly  right  for  nations  to 
destroy  each  other ! 

We  say  that  it  is  disgusting,  disgraceful,  for  men  to  settle 
their  disputes  with  fists,  knives,  daggers,  razors,  pistols.  Only 
rowdies,  toughs  and  savages  do  it.  In  most  civilized  lands  even 
the  duel  is  under  condemnation.  But  almost  all  Christians  in  the 
world  believe  that  this  is  just  the  way  nations  ought  to  settle 
their  disputes,  and  see  nothing  wrong  in  nations  flying  at  each 
other's  throats  on  the  slightest  provocation.  When  a  difference 
arises  between  two  men,  we  all  think  of  conciliation,  law  and 
courts ;  when  a  difference  arises  between  two  nations  the  thought 
of  these  same  Christians  is  war.  When  a  man  makes  certain 
claims  against  his  neighbor  and  his  neighbor  makes  counter  claims 
we  think  of  arbitration ;  when  two  nations  cannot  agree  upon  a 
question  our  first  thought  is  that  they  should  seek  justice  through 
trying  to  kill  each  other. 

We  praise  the  man  who  forgives.  The  books  on  which  we 
base  our  religion  have  forgiveness  running  through  them  like  a 
thread  of  gold.  He  whom  we  call  Master  practised  it,  even  to 
death.  But  whoever  conceived  that  a  nation  might  forbear  and 
forgive?  You  smile  at  the  thought.  You  would  be  indignant  at 
the  act.  Many  of  you  were  indignant  because  Mr.  Wilson  and 
Mr.  Bryan  even  suggested  forbearance  and  investigation  when 
Germany  sank  the  Lusitania.  Your  only  cry  w^as :  "Let  us  wallop 
Germany.  Let  us  revenge  ourselves  for  the  lives  of  American 
citizens.  Our  honor  has  been  insulted."  This  cry  was  in  religious 
newspapers,  in  Christian  pulpits,  to  say  nothing  of  the  mouths  of 
mobs  and  demagogues.  But  you  can  have  no  lasting  peace  until 
you  can  get  nations  which  will  act  like  Christian  gentlemen  when 
affronted.  Perhaps  the  greatest  lesson  of  modern  history  has  just 
been  taught  us  in  this  regard,  when  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  by  acting  toward  Germany  with  reason,  good-will  and 
forbearance,  has  won  the  greatest  victory  of  the  present  war.  It 
is  a  much  greater  victory  to  convert  a  man  than  to  kill  him. 

We  are  forever  singing  hymns  about  the  meek  and  lowly,  and 
these  are  the  qualities  which  the  Church  has  demanded  in  its 
saints.  But  we  call  the  same  qualities  in  a  nation  weak  and  pusil- 
lanimous.   We  call  that  nation  great  which  is  mighty,  overwhelm- 

10 


ing,  imperial,  irresistible  in  its  brute  strength,  which  by  force  of 
arms  can  conquer,  subjugate,  force  other  peoples  to  serve  it. 

We  call  that  man  greatest  who  serves  his  fellow  men,  and 
those  who  are  greatest  of  all  in  our  Christianity  are  those  who 
have  practically  forgotten  self  in  the  service  of  the  world.  But 
whoever  heard  of  a  nation  existing  first  of  all  for  the  service  of 
the  world?  The  thing  we  call  meanest  in  men,  selfishness,  we 
exalt  in  nations.  The  highest  duties  of  a  really  great  man  are 
toward  others ;  the  highest  duties  of  a  nation,  toward  itself.  Look 
how  from  many  high  Christian  sources  we  are  hearing  this :  "The 
first  duty  of  a  nation  is  the  protection  of  its  citizens" ;  "the  nation 
must  brook  no  insult" ;  "the  nation  must  uphold  its  honor."  What 
would  you  think  of  a  man  who  thought  his  chief  duty  in  life  was 
self-protection  or  avenging  his  honor  ?  Would  we  call  him  great  ? 
And  yet  notice  how  when  President  Wilson,  rising  above  this  low 
and  universal  conception  of  national  greatness,  and  carried  up 
into  that  level  where  we  judge  great  men,  insisted  that  the  first 
duty  of  the  United  States  was  not  retaliation,  not  revenge,  not 
protecting  her  honor,  not  even  seeking  reparation,  but  was  in  the 
securing  of  safety  on  the  seas  for  all  innocent  people,  and  the 
rescuing  of  Germany  from  her  mad  course.  Notice,  we  say,  how 
many  Christian  men  in  high  places  excoriated  him  and  spoke  with 
sneers  and  jeers.  When  men  put  self  first  they  fought  day  and 
night.  When  they  learned  to  put  service  first  they  had  peace. 
The  same  law  will  hold  with  nations.  There  can  be  but  one  great- 
ness, whether  it  be  of  men,  gods,  angels  or  nations. 

Perhaps  nowhere  is  this  contrast  more  widely  outstanding 
than  is  the  doctrine  of  rights.  No  Christian  lives  by  a  doctrine  of 
rights.  He  lives  by  a  doctrine  of  duties.  He  is  not  worried  over 
getting  his  rights.  He  does  not  go  about  clamoring  for  them,  any 
more  than  did  his  Master.  Even  if  he  did  believe  he  had  certain 
rights  which  ought  to  be  maintained  he  will  not,  if  he  is  a  gentle- 
man, insist  on  obtaining  these  rights  at  the  expense,  hurt,  or  death 
of  others.  The  state  considers  him  a  criminal  if  he  attempts  it 
and  condemns  him. 

The  question  then  immediately  arises  :  Has  the  time  not  come 
when  nations  should  be  compelled  to  respect  these  same  laws? 
Has  one  nation  a  right  to  plunge  all  Europe  into  hell,  or  even  to 
make  all  the  other  peaceful  nations  suflfer — for  all  nations  sufifer 
vastly  from  the  war  of  even  two — simply  to  secure  its  own  rights. 


even  where  it  is  recognized  by  all  that  the  rights  have  been 
violated?  Has  any  nation  the  right  to  go  to  war  to-day  without 
first  consulting  all  the  other  nations  and  exhausting  every  exist- 
ing means  of  securing  justice  when  such  a  course  invariably  means 
the  ruin  of  thousands  of  disinterested  and  innocent  people,  and 
may  mean  the  drawing  of  many  other  nations  into  the  war  ?  What 
Mr.  Taft  said  at  the  dedication  of  the  Pan-American  Peace  Palace 
in  Washington  must  be  applied  to  all  nations.  He  said  that  no 
two  nations  on  the  American  Continent  had  any  right  to  go  to  war 
and  disturb  all  the  others,  and  that  he  hoped  the  time  would  soon 
come  when  the  nineteen  nations  would  say  to  any  other  two  con- 
sidering war,  "You  must  stop."  It  is  time  this  came  in  all  the 
world. 

Any  nation  which  to-day,  with  the  present  oneness  of  the 
world,  declares  war  against  another  country  thereby  declares  war 
against  every  other  country,  and  the  time  has  come  to  recognize 
this  fact.  No  nation  can  go  to  war  to-day  without  going  to  war 
against  all  humanity.  Has  not  the  time  come  to  say  to  nations, 
just  as  we  say  to  individuals,  "If  the  securing  of  justice,  the 
obtaining  of  your  rights,  the  upholding  of  your  honor,  promises 
in  any  way  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the  rest  of  the  world  and  make 
all  the  innocent  nations  suffer,  you  must  refrain  from  individual 
action  and  do  as  individuals  do — try  your  case  before  some  com- 
petent judicial  body  by  orderly  processes  of  law."  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  this  is  the  surest  way  to  get  justice  in  the  end.  For 
instance,  what  is  Austria  getting  now?  What  might  she  not  have 
had  if  she  had  taken  her  dispute  with  Serbia  to  The  Hague,  as 
Serbia  was  willing  to  do  ? 


12 


Internationalism  and  Democracy 

James  A.  Macdonald,  LL.D. 

INDEPENDENCE  was  the  great  idea  of  North  America  in 
the  day  of  George  Washington ;  interdependence  is  coming  to 

be  the  far  greater  idea  of  North  America  in  our  day. 
NationaHsm  was  the  note  of  the  world  of  yesterday ;  international- 
ism will  be  the  keynote  of  the  world  of  to-morrow.  Autocracy 
and  mastership  were  organizing  forces  among  the  nations  in  the 
century  before  the  war;  democracy  and  liberty  will  be  the 
reorganizing  forces,  among  all  nations  and  over  all  the  world,  in 
the  new  century  after  the  war.  Liberty!  Democracy!  Inter- 
nationalism! These  three  must  be  the  dominant  ideas  in  the 
politics  of  all  peoples  if  the  shattered  fragments  of  the  old 
world's  barbarism  of  armed  peace  are  to  be  gathered  together 
into  the  New  World's  free  and  enduring  civilization. 

It  is  not  that  old  ideas  are  repudiated ;  it  is  rather  that  they 
are  being  outgrown.  It  is  not  that  national  life  is  decaying;  it  is 
rather  that  world-life  is  beginning  to  emerge.  When  the  world 
was  a  jungle  each  tribe  counted  every  other  tribe  its  enemy,  each 
race  lived  at  the  expense  of  every  other  race,  each  nation  thought 
to  come  to  power  by  the  overthrow  of  other  nations ;  but  as  the 
world  becomes  a  neighborhood  the  fact  of  mutual  dependence 
overcomes  the  impulses  to  tribal  war,  the  law  of  social  love  casts 
out  the  bondage  of  racial  fear,  and  the  ideal  of  international 
co-operation  sets  a  new  standard  of  national  greatness  in  the 
neighborhood  life  of  world  nations.  Nationalism  is  not  rebuked; 
rather  it  is  justified,  and  comes  to  its  own  in  the  broader  inter- 
national life.  The  best  seeds  of  nationalism  come  to  flower  and 
fruit  in  the  world  achievement  of  international  service. 

These  are  the  essential  principles  of  world  life  and  world 
progress.  They  are  set  forth  and  illustrated  in  the  history  of 
the  two  great  English-speaking  groups  of  nations — the  British 
Empire  and  the  United  States  of  America.  The  unmatched  illus- 
tration is  in  North  America.  The  great  fraternity  of  the  English- 
speaking  world  has  to  its  credit  an  achievement  on  this  North 
American  continent  which  is  without  precedent  or  parallel  else- 
where in  all  the  world's  history — the  marvel  and  the  inspiration 

13 


of  the  war-stricken  nations.  It  is  the  liberty,  the  democracy  and 
the  internationalism  of  the  United  States  and  Canada  at  their 
boundary  line  across  the  continent  through  more  than  a  hundred 
years. 

What  North  America  Has  Done 

A  civilized  international  boundary !  A  hundred  years  of  inter- 
national peace !  Two  nations,  not  at  war  because  of  the  arrogant 
autocracy  of  their  powers,  but  joined  in  a  noble  fraternity  by  the 
self-respecting  democracy  of  their  peoples !  That  is  the  distinc- 
tion of  North  America  among  the  continents.  It  is  the  distinction 
of  international  civilization  in  the  midst  of  a  world  of  international 
savagery.  It  is  the  supreme  message  of  North  America  to 
Europe  and  the  world. 

In  other  things  other  continents  may  have  pre-eminence. 
Things  done  elsewhere,  mere  things,  eccentricities  of  Nature, 
triumphs  of  invention,  applications  of  physical  science,  achieve- 
ments in  art  and  architecture — things  done  elsewhere  may  fill 
larger  space  in  the  world's  records.  And  it  may  be  that  the 
things  in  the  Panama-Pacific  Exposition,  about  which  Americans 
themselves  make  loudest  boasts,  are  but  replicas,  reproductions, 
evolutions  of  old  world  suggestions  and  creations.  Other  races 
and  other  ages  labored,  and  America  has  entered  into  their  labors. 

But  in  one  thing  North  America  blazed  a  new  trail,  staked  a 
new  claim.  In  one  achievement  North  America  stands  alone.  It 
is  the  greatest  achievement,  the  joint  international  achievement 
of  the  two  nations  holding  this  continent  from  the  Gulf  of  Mexico 
and  the  Rio  Grande  to  the  Arctic  seas.  It  is  the  product  and  the 
expression  of  the  combined  and  unified  life  of  the  United  States 
and  Canada  through  their  marvelous  century  of  international 
history.  That  stupendous  achievement,  that  world-idea,  is 
expressed  in  a  boundary  line  between  these  two  young,  proud, 
aggressive  nations,  four  thousand  miles  from  ocean  to  ocean, 
across  which,  in  more  than  a  hundred  years,  neither  nation  ever 
once  marched  a  menacing  army  or  fired  a  hostile  gun. 

Grasp  that  idea.  Measure  that  achievement.  A  thousand 
miles  up  the  mighty  St.  Lawrence!  A  thousand  miles  along  the 
Great  Lakes!  A  thousand  miles  across  the  open  prairies!  A 
thousand  miles  over  the  world's  greatest  mountain  ranges !  Four 
thousand  miles  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  and  nearly  a 

14 


thousand  more  from  the  Pacific  across  to  the  Arctic !  More  than 
four  thousand  miles  where  nation  meets  nation,  where  sovereignty 
greets  sovereignty,  where  flag  salutes  flag,  but  never  a  fortress, 
never  a  battleship,  never  a  gun,  never  a  sentry  on  guard.  More 
than  four  thousand  miles  of  civilized  and  Christianized  inter- 
nationalism. That  is  North  America's  world-idea.  That  is  North 
America's  message  to  Europe. 

Europe's  International  Collapse 

Over  against  that  international  achievement  of  North 
America  stands  the  international  collapse  of  Europe.  The 
world's  history  presents  no  spectacle  so  pitious  as  the  unspeakable 
tragedy  of  Europe  at  this  very  hour — the  tragedy  of  Belgium,  the 
tragedy  of  Poland,  the  tragedy  of  the  Balkans,  and  the  still  more 
staggering  tragedy  of  Germany.  All  the  achievements  of  Europe's 
civilization,  all  the  things  that  make  for  human  progress  and 
freedom  and  justice,  the  work  of  a  thousand  years  and  the  hopes 
of  a  thousand  more — all  have  been  crowded  back  into  the  melting 
pot  of  hideous  and  brutal  war.  No  matter  who  is  responsible  for 
it,  the  lining  up  for  mutual  slaughter  of  millions  upon  millions 
of  the  best  breeds  in  the  greatest  nations  of  Europe ;  the  wanton 
destruction  of  the  treasures  of  all  the  ages,  the  wholesale 
squandering  of  the  wealth  of  more  than  half  the  nations  of  the 
world,  and  the  sowing  of  the  seeds  of  international  hate  for 
generations  yet  unborn ;  all  this  for  the  alleged  purpose  of  settling 
some  dispute  between  Austria  and  Servia,  or  some  race  enmity 
between  the  Teuton  and  the  Slav,  is  a  blank  denial  of  civiHzation ; 
it  is  a  crime  against  humanity ;  it  is  an  apostasy  from  Christ. 

As  if  to  speak  the  condemnation  of  Europe's  failure  there  is 
presented  at  the  very  same  time  in  North  America  the  celebration 
of  a  full  century  of  unbroken  peace  between  the  two  great  sections 
of  the  English-speaking  world,  the  greatest  empire  in  the  world's 
history  and  the  world's  greatest  republic. 

This  is  indeed  the  sublimest  wonder  of  all  the  world  to-day — 
this  gigantic  human  spectacle  of  more  than  400,000,000  of  peoples 
of  all  races  and  colors  and  languages,  covering  more  than  one- 
quarter  of  the  land  area  of  the  globe,  living  at  peace  under  the 
Union  Jack ;  and  under  the  Stars  and  Stripes,  100,000,000  of  as 
free  and  as  enterprising  peoples  as  civilization  has  produced,  and 

IS 


these  two  flags,  both  of  them  "Red,  White  and  Blue,"  entwined 
for  a  hundred  years  to  promote  the  freedom  and  progress  and 
peace  of  all  humanity.  Earth  sees  nothing  more  marvelous  or 
more  splendid  than  that.  And  in  these  days,  these  awful  days  of 
staggering  and  bitterness,  when  the  war-clouds  of  Europe  loom 
blackest,  when  their  thunders  speak  of  death  and  their  lightnings 
flash  a  hell,  the  grief-blinded  eyes  of  Europe  may  turn  again  to 
America,  and  in  the  after-glow  of  an  unparalleled  century  of 
Anglo-American  civilization  the  broken  heart  of  humanity  may 
yet  praise  God  and  take  fresh  courage  for  the  redemption  of 
the  world. 

That  is  the  meaning  and  the  message  of  North  America's 
political  watchwords :     Liberty !    Democracy !     Internationalism ! 


16 


The  Patriotism  of  Peace 

Matt.  S.  Hughes,  D.D. 

THE  writer's  earliest  recollection  of  the  Fourth  of  July  goes 
back  to  the  centennial  year  of  1876.  He  was  then  a  small 
boy  in  a  little  community  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's 
line.  There  was  a  great  patriotic  celebration  with  that  typical 
institution  of  the  South— a  barbecue.  The  national  hymn  was 
sung,  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  read,  and  a  patriotic 
address  was  delivered  by  a  citizen  who  had  been  a  general  officer 
in  the  Federal  army  during  the  Civil  War.  The  orator  of  the  day 
made  a  profound  appeal  to  my  childish  imagination  because  he 
came  upon  the  platform  in  full  regimentals.  He  observed  the  day 
by  wearing  his  military  uniform,  despite  the  fact  that  more  than 
a  decade  had  passed  since  the  smoke  of  battle  had  lifted  from 
the  field  of  Appomattox  and  peace  had  been  declared  between 
the  North  and  South. 

That  military  uniform,  worn  by  my  first  Independence  Day 
orator,  is  mentioned  here  because  it  symbolizes  a  characteristic  of 
our  national  thought.  We  associate  patriotism  with  war.  We 
see  its  distinctive  manifestations  in  military  service  and  military 
achievement.  Our  patriotic  celebrations  are  characterized  by 
military  display.  Our  fighting  forces  are  paraded ;  our  regimental 
bands  play  our  national  airs,  and  our  orators  are  prone  to  describe 
our  wars  and  eulogize  our  military  heroes.  These  are  the  familiar 
accompaniments  of  our  patriotic  observances. 

There  is  good  reason  for  this  intimate  association  of  patriot- 
ism and  war.  The  dramatic  chapters  in  our  history  describe  our 
conflicts.  The  war  of  the  Revolution  gave  us  freedom  from 
England  and  independency  of  government;  the  war  of  1812  gave 
us  freedom  of  commerce  and  our  rights  as  a  sovereign  nation  upon 
the  high  seas;  the  war  of  1861  gave  us  human  freedom  in  the 
abolition  of  slavery  and  a  united  country  by  the  annihilation  of  the 
political  dogma  of  state  sovereignty.  In  addition  to  these  real 
wars  and  their  fruits,  the  Mexican  war,  about  which  we  are  not 
so  sure  and  not  so  proud,  gave  us  the  Pacific  empire,  including  our 
commonwealth  of  California,  and  the  war  with  Spain  relieved  us 

17 


of  an  unwholesome  presence  in  the  western  hemisphere  and 
initiated  our  career  as  a  world-power. 

We  celebrate  Memorial  Day  among  our  national  holidays  as 
second  only  to  Independence  Day.  On  that  anniversary  we  pay 
solemn  tribute  to  all  our  soldier  dead.  But  we  have  no  day  on 
which  we  honor  the  memory  of  those  who  have  served  our  country 
in  times  and  ways  of  peace.  Thus  it  is  a  natural  outcome  that  the 
American  people  should  associate  patriotism  with  war,  and 
patriotic  service  with  military  achievement. 

In  contrast  with  this  popular  conception,  I  wish  to  present 
as  our  subject,  "The  Patriotism  of  Peace."  In  these  days  it  will 
be  good  to  emphasize  the  poet's  declaration  that  "Peace  hath  her 
victories  no  less  renowned  than  war."  A  little  reflection  will  con- 
vince the  thoughtful  mind  that  the  patriotism  of  peace  must 
respond  to  heavier  demands  than  the  patriotism  of  war.  This 
conclusion  must  be  drawn  from  such  considerations  as  these :  The 
work  only  begun  in  war  must  always  be  completed  in  peace;  the 
extraordinary  cost  of  war  must  always  be  paid  in  times  of  peace ; 
the  penalties  of  war  must  always  be  suffered  in  peace;  the  evils 
created  by  war  must  always  be  dealt  with  in  peace.  These  proposi- 
tions indicate  the  vital  importance  of  our  study. 

There  is  a  remarkable  chapter  in  our  history  which  illustrates 
the  proposition  that  war  is  only  a  beginning  in  the  solution  of 
national  problems.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  had  to 
be  made  effective  by  war.  The  fight  for  freedom  on  the  battle- 
fields was  over  in  1783.  A  special  treaty  of  peace  was  concluded 
with  England;  the  red-coated  armies  embarked  for  the  mother 
country ;  Washington,  the  commander-in-chief,  resigned  his  com- 
mission and  retired  to  well-earned  rest  at  Mount  Vernon.  The 
Revolution  was  over. 

But  this  was  only  a  beginning.  The  thirteen  colonies  were 
bound  together  with  ropes  of  sand ;  they  sought  to  establish  a 
"league  of  friendship"  by  means  of  articles  of  confederation ;  they 
could  raise  no  revenues  and  the  army  was  unpaid  and  mutinous; 
dissensions  arose  between  the  colonies,  and  there  was  no  court  of 
appeal ;  American  credit  had  failed,  and  we  were  fast  drifting  into 
a  state  of  anarchy.  The  outlook  was  dark  and  almost  hopeless. 
The  period  of  seven  years  following  the  cessation  of  hostilities 
is  called  by  one  of  our  historians,  Professor  John  Fiske,  "The 
Critical  Period  of  American  History."  War  had  accomplished  its 
uttermost,  but  at  this  point  its  limitations  were  acutely  realized. 

18 


Under  pressure  of  such  a  distressing  state  of  affairs,  the 
federal  convention  met  in  Philadelphia  in  May,  1787.  This  marks 
the  real  beginnings  of  our  national  life.  The  sessions  of  the  body 
were  secret,  and  the  outcome  was  awaited  with  the  greatest 
interest  and  the  wildest  speculations.  At  last  the  constitution  was 
completed ;  was  ratified  by  state  after  state,  and  in  January,  1789, 
Washington  was  called  to  the  presidency  of  the  United  States. 
As  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  he  had  compelled  the 
acknowledgment  of  our  independence,  but  no  nation  can  live  by 
independence  alone.  With  all  he  had  accomplished  in  the  field 
as  military  chieftain,  under  the  impulse  of  the  patriotism  of  war, 
our  land  would  have  been  worse  off  after  the  Revolution  than 
before  had  it  not  been  for  what  he  and  his  compatriots  accom- 
plished under  the  pressure  of  the  patriotism  of  peace.  The 
achievements  of  war  were  only  valuable  as  they  were  followed 
by  the  achievements  of  peace.  The  expenditures  of  war  in  men 
and  in  money  would  have  been  wasted  had  it  not  been  for  the 
conservation  of  peace. 

This  same  lesson,  that  war  is  only  a  beginning,  has  been 
pressed  home  upon  the  American  people  again  and  again,  with  the 
sober  hours  following  the  jubilations  at  the  declaration  of  peace. 
In  the  war  of  1812  we  secured  freedom  of  commerce,  but  there 
remained  to  the  patriotism  of  peace  the  more  arduous  task  of 
achieving  commerce  and  the  conquest  of  the  markets  of  the  world. 
That  belonged  to  peace,  and  it  may  be  added  that  the  task  has  not 
been  accomplished  in  one  hundred  years.  The  war  with  Mexico 
gave  us  territory,  but  there  remained  the  more  important  tasks  of 
settlement  and  the  building  of  great  commonwealths  like  Cali- 
fornia. That  belonged  to  peace,  and  it  may  be  remarked  that  each 
year  shows  us  how  trem.endous  is  the  task  demanded  of  us  in 
peace  as  compared  with  the  march  of  a  handful  of  soldiers  to  the 
capital  city  of  our  neighbor  on  the  south.  That  campaign  was 
soon  over,  but  every  year  since  that  time  the  patriotism  of  peace 
has  been  making  increased  demands  upon  the  citizenship  which 
followed  in  the  wake  of  the  soldiers'  campaign  in  Mexico.  The 
Civil  War  left  us  with  the  problems  of  reconstruction,  and  we 
have  been  discovering  that  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  issued 
as  a  war  measure,  was  only  a  beginning.  The  negro  is  more  of 
a  problem  now  than  he  was  before  the  war.    The  Spanish- Ameri- 

19 


can  war  was  only  a  beginning,  and  its  results  are  pressing  large 
claims  against  the  patriotism  appeal.  It  tossed  Porto  Rico  and  the 
Philippine  Islands  into  our  lap  and  placed  Cuba  under  our  tute- 
lage, thus  enormously  increasing  our  responsibilities,  and  the  end 
is  not  yet.  The  sufficiency  for  these  things  must  be  found  in  the 
patriotism  of  peace. 

The  lesson  is  that  war  plays  a  necessary  but  subordinate  part 
in  the  working  out  of  a  nation's  destiny.  Opportunity  may  be 
won  in  conflict  by  force  of  arms,  but  that  opportunity  must  be 
improved  under  the  inspiration  of  the  patriotism  of  peace. 
Enemies  may  be  driven  from  our  territory  by  gun  and  bayonet, 
but  republican  government  and  its  institutions  can  never  be  con- 
structed by  such  means.  Political  dogmas  may  be  blown  to 
destruction  from  the  cannon's  mouth,  but  a  strong,  loyal,  intelli- 
gent citizenship  is  not  the  product  of  the  armed  camp,  but  must 
be  evolved  by  the  institutions  and  the  processes  of  peace.  War  is 
destructive  and  may  be  necessary  in  overcoming  enemies  and 
removing  obstacles  threatening  national  life  and  progress;  but 
peace  must  be  constructive,  and  the  best  thing  to  be  said  about 
war  is  that  it  sometimes  conquers  a  peace  which  gives  patriotism 
its  highest  opportunity  for  its  noblest  tasks. 

War  may  give  us  freedom  from  England,  but  only  peace  can 
construct  a  strong  and  stable  government;  war  may  warn  the 
nations  against  interference  with  our  shipping,  but  only  the 
activities  of  peace  can  carry  our  flag  into  the  harbors  of  the 
world;  war  may  give  us  vast  stretches  of  territory,  but  only  the 
ministries  of  peace  can  banish  the  wilderness  and  make  the  deserts 
to  blossom  as  the  rose ;  war  may  decide  that  the  republic  is  one 
and  indivisible,  but  only  the  intercourse  of  peace  can  exorcise  the 
evil  spirit  of  sectionalism ;  war  may  give  us  new  possessions  in 
the  Atlantic  and  the  Pacific,  but  it  is  the  long,  hard  task  of  the 
statesman  and  the  schoolmaster  to  prepare  Porto  Rico  and  the 
Philippine  Islands  for  self-government  or  a  place  among  the 
states  of  the  Union.  The  lesson  is  plain  that  war  is  never  any- 
thing more  or  better  than  a  beginning ;  the  work  begun  must  be 
carried  on  and  completed  under  the  auspices  of  the  patriotism 
of  peace. 

One  of  the  wise  utterances  of  Benjamin  Franklin  is  to  this 
effect :  "Wars  are  not  paid  for  in  war  times  ;  the  bills  come  later." 
The  statement,  of  course,  is  only  partially  true.    There  are  certain 

20 


items  of  war  expense  that  are  due  and  payable  at  the  time.  The 
payment  is  exacted  on  the  battlefield,  in  the  hospitals,  at  the  home 
and  in  the  prison.  The  heaviest  payments  on  account  of  war  are 
made  by  those  directly  engaged,  and  these  claims  are  liquidated 
by  those  of  past  generations. 

There  are  other  expenses  of  war  that  drag  themselves  out 
over  succeeding  years.  The  fact  that  Revolutionary  claims  have 
scarcely  ceased  in  our  own  country,  while  bills  for  the  war  of 
1812  still  come  in  occasionally,  will  give  us  some  idea  of  the 
persistence  of  this  feature  of  war  and  the  burdens  it  lays  upon 
the  patriotism  of  peace.  Our  great-grandchildren  will  be  taxed  to 
pay  for  the  wars  we  have  already  fought  when  the  twenty-first 
century  dawns.  The  accounts  of  past  wars  will  not  be  declared 
closed  until  we  are  well  on  into  the  third  century  of  our  national 
existence.  And  let  us  have  this  fact  indelibly  fixed  in  our  minds : 
Every  dollar  of  the  cost  of  all  the  wars  in  our  nation's  history 
must  be  paid  by  the  toil  of  men's  hands.  Consider  only  a  few 
of  these  items : 

North  and  South,  during  our  Civil  War,  several  million  men 
were  withdrawn  from  gainful  occupations  for  four  years.  In  a 
rapidly  developing  country  such  as  ours,  four  years  of  industry 
and  commerce  is  a  tremendous  item.  Yet  this  was  only  a  negative 
item  of  expense,  not  missed  by  us,  though  we  have  been  poorer 
by  so  much  as  a  nation  ever  since.  We  cannot  place  the  item 
on  any  ledger,  and  the  expert  accountants  cannot  help  us  much  in 
the  figuring ;  but  however  it  may  be  with  an  individual,  the  income 
of  a  nation  ceases  when  its  work  stops.  It  must  either  draw  upon 
its  reserves  or  mortgage  its  future.    We  did  both. 

Consider  as  another  item  in  the  account  the  economic  loss  to 
the  nation  by  the  destruction  of  its  men  in  war.  Never  in  our 
history  have  we  accepted  the  old,  false  theory  that  war  is  a  bless- 
ing because  it  prevents  the  accumulation  of  a  surplus  in  popula- 
tion. The  men  killed  in  our  Civil  War  were  nearly  all  young  and 
vigorous,  and  of  the  best  American  blood.  If  they  had  lived  they 
would  have  become  the  heads  of  families,  the  farmers,  the  crafts- 
men, the  men  of  trade  and  commerce,  the  professional  men  of  the 
next  generation.  Many  of  them,  in  all  human  possibility,  would 
have  become  important  factors  in  the  opening  up  and  develop- 
ment of  the  great  west.  If  we  estimate  the  earning  power  of  the 
million  men.  North  and  South,  who  perished  in  the  war,  at  the 

21 


low  figure  of  only  $400  per  man  annually,  the  nation  lost  by  their 
death  $400,000,000  per  year.  In  forty  years,  which  they  would 
have  lived  on  the  average,  they  would  have  been  worth  to  the 
nation  the  enormous  sum  of  $16,000,000,000 — a  sum  twice  as 
great  as  the  total  original  cost  of  the  war  to  the  nation.  And  to 
this  we  must  add  the  economic  values  of  the  offspring  of  these 
men,  which  would  have  been  continued  to  the  nation  after  the 
death  of  the  sires. 

Consider  the  cost  in  another  aspect.  In  1857  our  public  debt 
had  been  reduced  to  $28,000,000.  In  the  prosecution  of  the  war, 
Congress  enacted  our  highest  tariff  bill  in  1861,  and  we  paid  some 
of  the  expenses  during  hostilities.  But  in  August,  1865,  our 
national  debt  was  $2,846,000,000,  and  that  amount  remained  to 
be  collected  from  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  times  of 
peace.  This  means  that,  notwithstanding  heavy  taxes  were  levied 
upon  many  articles  of  sale  and  large  fees  exacted  for  many  busi- 
ness documents,  the  debt  increased  at  the  rate  of  $700,000,000  a 
year  during  the  war.    We  are  engaged  in  paying  the  bills  to-day. 

Nor  is  this  all.  Our  government  has  paid  in  pensions  since 
the  close  of  the  Civil  War,  to  say  nothing  of  the  cost  of  soldiers' 
homes,  more  than  $3,000,000,000.  Before  we  are  through  with  it 
we  shall  have  paid  not  less  than  $5,000,000,000,  or  much  more 
than  one-half  the  total  war  expenditures,  North  and  South.  In 
addition,  we  have  paid  in  interest  on  the  public  debt — nearly  ail 
war  debt — during  the  same  period  not  less  than  $2,500,000,000. 
Our  yearly  interest  bill  is  still  about  $25,000,000,  and  this  account, 
decreasing  of  course,  we  shall  carry  for  many  years.  In  addition 
to  these  government  expenses,  the  states  have,  during  the  same 
period,  paid  out  in  bounties  and  to  indigent  soldiers  and  sailors 
sums  aggregating  more  than  $800,000,000.  One  state,  New  York, 
has  expended  in  this  way  over  $200,000,000  .  In  other  words,  we 
pay  for  war  in  times  of  peace. 

In  order  that  this  exhibit  of  the  war  burdens  laid  upon  the 
shoulders  of  the  patriotism  of  peace  may  be  understood  and 
appreciated  we  must  use  comparisons.  The  story  is  told  by  the 
comparative  expenditures  of  the  national  treasury  for  the  thirty- 
one  years  from  1879  to  1909.  During  that  period  we  spent  for 
army,  navy,  pensions  and  interest,  $12,210,499,778.  The  balance 
of  the  national  income  for  these  thirty-one  years  was 
$3,479,696,805.    This  was  spent  upon  the  civil  administration  of 

22 


national  affairs,  legislation,  law,  justice,  customs  service,  Indians, 
and  all  other  miscellaneous  activities  of  the  nation.  In  other 
words,  during  that  period  of  thirty-one  years  of  peace,  broken  only 
for  a  few  months  while  we  administered  a  needed  lesson  to 
Spain,  we  spent  71.5  per  cent  of  all  our  national  income  in  pay- 
ing war  expenses,  and  only  28.5  per  cent  for  all  the  other  work 
of  our  government.  Almost  three  dollars  out  of  every  four  of 
our  national  revenue  was  used  to  pay  the  claims  of  war,  past  or 
prospective.  During  the  entire  life  of  our  republic  we  have  spent 
more  than  three  times  as  much  for  war  and  its  incidents 
($16,567,677,135)  as  we  have  devoted  to  the  activities  of  peace 
($4,951,194,216).  Further,  the  money  raised  and  expended  for 
war  during  the  political  life  of  the  republic  exceeds  the  gold 
production  of  the  world  since  the  discovery  of  America — thirteen 
and  a  half  billions  of  dollars — by  three  billions  of  dollars. 

I  ask  you  to  remember  that  I  am  not  discussing  the 
philosophy  of  militarism.  I  am  not  an  advocate  of  peace  at  any 
price.  I  am  in  favor  of  international  arbitration,  but  there  are 
some  questions,  it  seems  to  me,  that  do  not  lend  themselves  to 
that  method  of  settlement.  Neither  would  I  be  understood  as 
arguing  in  favor  of  withholding  one  dollar  for  which  we  have 
been  obligated  as  a  people  because  of  our  indulgence  in  the  costly 
pastime  of  war.  These  things  are  only  mentioned  in  this  con- 
nection that  we  may  understand  the  truth  of  the  proposition  that 
the  patriotism  of  peace  has  to  pay  the  extraordinary  cost  con- 
tracted under  the  patriotism  of  war.  And  every  dollar  of  which 
I  have  been  speaking  has  to  be  earned  by  the  toil  of  the  citizen 
in  peace. 

We  also  lay  down  the  proposition  that  the  evils  springing 
from  war  have  to  be  faced  and  dealt  with  by  the  patriotism  of 
peace.  Here  our  confirmation  and  our  illustrations  may  be 
limited  to  the  Civil  War  and  its  legacies  to  the  American  people. 

Out  of  the  Civil  War  came  the  war  tariffs  and  the  begin- 
nings of  the  high  protective  area  of  our  history.  After  the  war, 
when  the  expenses  of  government  were  enormously  increased,  the 
war  tariff  rates  of  1864  still  prevailed.  A  10  per  cent  "horizontal" 
reduction  in  1872  was  revoked  in  1875.  The  theory  of  nurturing 
infant  industries  has  been  used  to  saddle  war  tariffs  upon  the 
people  for  nearly  fifty  years.  The  spectacle  of  these  lusty 
children  of  the  tariff,  grown  to  bloated  and  belligerent  manhood, 

23 


and  still  clutching  the  nursing  bottle  of  the  tariff,  finally  appealed 
to  the  people's  sense  of  the  ridiculous,  and  party  platforms  began 
to  contain  promises  of  weaning.  In  addition,  the  people  began 
to  inquire  into  the  mysteries  of  tariff-making  and  were  properly 
scandalized  as  the  result  of  their  investigations.  The  abuses  of 
the  tariff  and  the  evils  flowing  therefrom  for  nearly  half  a 
century,  we  may  regard  as  a  war  legacy  to  the  patriots  of  peace. 

During  the  Civil  War,  too,  our  statesmen  saw  the  political 
necessity  of  attaching  the  Pacific  coast  to  the  far  east  by  rail. 
California  was  at  that  time  so  far  out  of  communication  with  the 
rest  of  the  republic  that  its  adherence  to  the  Union  was  a  matter 
of  sentiment  rather  than  of  direct  connection.  Here  began  the 
national  railway  subsidy  system,  so  fruitful  in  corruption  and 
scandal.  The  Pacific  railroad  bill,  carried  by  Thaddeus  Stevens 
in  1862,  gave  to  the  Union  and  the  Central  Pacific  railroads  a 
money  subsidy  of  over  $25,000  a  mile,  and  more  than  30,000,000 
acres  of  land  in  addition.  The  money  subsidy  took  the  form  of 
a  loan,  but  it  was  not  expected  that  it  would  be  repaid,  which  was 
a  fortunate  lack  of  expectation  in  view  of  subsequent  develop- 
ments. Some  of  my  readers  will  recall  the  scandal  of  the  con- 
struction company,  formed  for  building  the  road,  the  Credit 
Mobilier,  stock  of  the  company  being  found  in  the  possession  of 
many  congressmen,  who  had  furnished  no  consideration  therefor. 
The  Northern  Pacific  road  did  not  succeed  in  getting  a  cash  sub- 
sidy, but  its  promoters  secured  a  double  grant  of  land  per  mile, 
amounting  to  about  47,000,000  acres  in  all.  The  two  southern 
routes  secured  about  70,000,000  acres  in  all,  so  that  there  have 
been  given  to  railroads  something  like  160,000,000  acres  of  terri- 
torial land.  Up  to  1892  the  railroads  received  from  Congress 
960  acres  of  land  for  every  mile  of  road  constructed  under  the 
granting  acts.  The  immense  power  given  into  the  keeping  of  the 
corporations  thus  created  under  the  pressure  of  war  necessity 
gave  rise,  especially  here  on  the  coast,  to  problems  with  which 
every  intelligent  citizen  is  more  or  less  familiar.  It  has  been  a 
matter  of  doubt  for  more  than  a  generation  as  to  whether  we  were 
citizens  under  a  government  or  subjects  under  certain  corpora- 
tions. There  was  not  much  room  for  doubt  either,  seeing  that 
the  corporations  controlled  the  machinery  of  government. 

We  trace  back  to  that  same  period  of  extravagant  expendi- 
ture the  beginnings  of  the  exploitation  of  our  national  resources 

24 


by  private  interests.  Our  national  wealth  has  not  been  admin- 
istered in  the  interest  of  the  people,  to  whom  it  belongs.  Our 
great  ranges  were  taken  by  cattlemen,  and  we  grew  a  crop  of 
cattle  kings ;  our  coal  fields  were  seized  by  a  handful  of  men,  some 
of  whom  regarded  themselves  as  trustees  of  the  Almighty,  and 
we  developed  a  dynasty  of  coal  kings,  both  bituminous  and  anthra- 
cite ;  our  hills  and  valleys  were  denuded  of  their  forests,  and  the 
results  were  the  ravages  of  annual  floods  in  some  parts  of  the 
country  and  the  establishment  of  a  line  of  timber  kings ;  our 
water-power  sites  have  been  largely  seized  in  the  same  way,  and 
now  we  have  a  collection  of  would-be  light  and  power  kings 
struggling  for  thrones.  These  are  legacies  of  the  free-and-easy 
period,  when  our  legislators  were  busy  with  war  tariffs  and  recon- 
struction schemes. 

Out  of  this  same  Civil  War  came  the  unholy  alliance  between 
the  liquor  traffic  and  the  United  States  government.  Our  govern- 
ment raises  its  funds  by  customs  duties  and  internal  revenues. 
When  in  1901  the  internal  revenue  receipts  reached  the  high- 
water  mark  of  $301,000,000,  four-fifths  of  that  enormous  sum, 
or  $254,000,000,  came  from  tobacco  and  spirits.  That  explains 
why  the  national  government  has  allowed  the  liquor  traffic  right 
of  way  in  prohibition  communities  and  states,  and  why  the  will 
of  the  people,  legally  expressed  at  the  polls,  is  violated  by  lawless 
persons  under  the  protection  of  a  federal  license.  I  am  not 
making  an  anti-liquor  appeal.  I  am  simply  tracing  back  to  their 
beginning  in  war  some  most  remarkable  features  of  present-day 
conditions. 

Only  one  thing  more  let  me  mention.  Naturally  during  this 
period  following  the  Civil  War  there  grew  up  a  most  intimate 
alliance  between  high  finance  and  the  government.  Our  legisla- 
tion had  to  do  with  business  interests  in  framing  tariff  schedules. 
Our  political  discussions  were  usually  limited  to  the  clashing  of 
crude  economic  theories.  Business  in  America  found  its  most 
useful  ally  in  politics,  and  business  men  regarded  political  con- 
tributions as  belonging  to  the  overhead  charges  of  their  enter- 
prises. Now  naturally,  when  business  furnishes  the  money  to 
elect  the  legislators,  the  legislators  are  expected  to  furnish  laws 
to  suit  their  patrons.  The  result  was  that  the  moral  element, 
which  was  strong  in  our  national  life  in  the  ante-bellum  days, 
became  so  weak  and  flabby  that  one  of  our  distinguished  public 

25 


men  thought  nothing  of  boldly  proclaiming  that  the  authority  of 
the  Ten  Commandments  in  American  politics  was  "an  iridescent 
dream."  I  have  always  been  glad  to  believe  that  the  gentleman 
was  infinitely  higher  in  character  than  in  his  sentiment. 

The  climax  in  the  ascendancy  of  the  new  order  was  reached 
in  the  middle  nineties  with  the  rise  of  a  modem  captain  of 
industry  to  supreme  place  in  the  counsels  of  the  dominant  party. 
Mark  Hanna  declared  that  this  was  a  business  man's  country  and 
that  we  must  have  a  business  man's  government.  That  meant 
that  our  national  emphasis  must  be  laid  on  property  and  not  on 
the  person.  The  drift  has  been  in  that  direction  in  our  courts  of 
justice,  in  our  halls  of  legislation,  in  our  administration  of  govern- 
ment, and  even  in  our  international  relations,  characterized  of 
recent  years  by  what  has  come  to  be  known  as  "dollar  diplomacy." 
The  struggle  of  long  years  to  secure  the  adoption  of  safety  devices 
on  our  railroads  to  prevent  the  needless  slaughter  of  trainmen, 
and  the  impossibility  of  securing  a  federal  law  against  child  labor 
because  business  demands  the  juvenile  sacrifice  in  the  interest  of 
dividends,  are  only  cases  in  point. 

Of  course  our  drift  toward  a  system  of  government  by 
check  book  was  accompanied  by  graft  of  all  descriptions,  for  if 
business  is  the  end  of  government  it  is  an  exceedingly  stupid 
public  official  who  does  not  recognize  business  opportunities  for 
himself  in  office.  But  all  of  this  is  only  brought  to  your  attention 
that  you  may  realize  how  war  lays  its  burdens  upon  peace. 

It  remains  to  be  said  with  emphasis  that  the  patriotism  of 
peace  makes  its  own  peculiar  demands  upon  the  lover  of  his 
country.  The  patriot  of  war  may  fail  as  a  patriot  of  peace.  I 
remember  attending  a  Loyal  Legion  banquet  some  years  ago  to 
make  an  address.  One  of  the  speakers  on  the  program  was  a 
gentleman  holding  a  most  distinguished  position  under  the  govern- 
ment. He  had  been  the  colonel  of  a  federal  regiment  in  the  Civil 
War.  He  was  an  eloquent  speaker  and  a  man  of  attractive  per- 
sonality. That  night  he  came  with  the  recital  of  an  incident  of 
most  pathetic  interest.  He  pulled  out  the  tremolo  stops  of  his 
voice,  and  the  tears  of  emotion  glistened  in  his  eyes.  He  told  of 
a  recent  visit  by  a  member  of  his  regiment,  whom  he  had  not  seen 
since  they  were  mustered  out  of  service  at  the  close  of  the  war. 
After  they  had  exchanged  reminiscences  he  described  how  they 
went  together  to  his  library,  where  hung  the  sword  which  he  had 

26 


carried  as  colonel  of  the  regiment;  how  they  took  it  down  from 
the  wall  with  reverent  hands  and,  inspired  by  the  memories  of 
the  stirring  scenes  through  which  they  had  passed  together,  shed 
their  mutual  tears  over  the  relic  of  their  comradeship. 

To  be  perfectly  frank,  the  pathetic  recital  made  no  more 
impression  upon  me  than  the  bark  of  a  dog  or  the  sound  of  a 
horse's  hoofs  on  a  plank  road.  For  that  man,  who  had  been  a 
patriot  in  war  and  who  still  shed  tears  over  his  sword,  was  simply 
the  tool  of  predatory  interests  in  the  times  of  peace,  using  an 
impregnable  position  to  betray  his  unfortunate  countrymen  into 
the  hands  of  greed,  and  his  service  for  his  private  masters  was 
so  well  understood  that  his  name  was  a  hissing  and  a  byword 
among  his  fellow-citizens,  against  whom  he  wrought  injustice  in 
the  sacred  name  of  the  American  republic.  He  was  a  patriot  in 
war  and  a  traitor  in  peace.  As  an  officer  of  the  army  he  bravely 
faced  his  country's  foes ;  but  as  an  official  of  the  government  in 
times  of  peace  he  used  his  place  and  power  to  betray  his  fellow- 
citizens  into  the  hands  of  the  enemies  of  the  republic.  More 
commendable  was  the  action  of  General  Lee,  who,  having  man- 
fully fought  against  the  government  in  time  of  war,  exemplified 
the  finest  civic  virtues  in  times  of  peace.  Better  still,  the  example 
of  General  Grant,  who  served  his  country  with  honor  and  fidelity 
in  both  war  and  peace.  He  was  as  patriotic  from  1865  to  1885 
as  he  was  from  1861  to  1865.  His  devotion  to  the  highest  ideals 
of  citizenship  was  not  compressed  into  one  quadrennium  of  war. 

Even  in  times  of  conflict  we  are  led  to  recognize  the  value  of 
forms  of  national  service  other  than  military.  All  our  great  wars 
have  raised  up  servants  of  the  republic,  whose  claims  to  grateful 
remembrance  as  patriots  are  not  associated  with  field  and  camp. 
Samuel  Adams  was  not  a  soldier,  but  there  were  times  when  he 
seemed  to  be  the  very  incarnation  of  American  independence.  The 
desire  of  General  Gage  to  suppress  the  uprising  in  the  person  of 
this  notable  champion  had  to  do  with  the  British  expedition  to 
Lexington  and  Concord,  and  to  Adams  a  warning  was  carried  by 
Paul  Revere  on  his  famous  ride.  Benjamin  Franklin  did  not 
fight  in  the  war  for  independence,  but  his  services  at  the  court  of 
France  meant  more  to  the  cause  of  American  liberty  than  the 
achievements  of  an  army  corps  in  the  field.  Robert  Morris  was 
not  soldier  or  sailor,  but  he  was  the  financier  of  the  Revolution. 
He  pledged  his  personal  credit  to  support  the  public  credit,  and 

27 


at  one  time  was  pledged  for  the  enormous  sum  of  $1,400,000  for 
supplies  for  the  army.  In  1781  he  supplied  almost  everything  to 
carry  on  the  campaign  against  Cornwallis.  In  the  Civil  War 
Henry  Ward  Beecher  fought  with  his  tongue  while  others  wielded 
the  sword,  and  his  English  campaign  must  have  recognition  as  one 
of  the  successful  strategic  movements  of  that  great  struggle.  The 
colossal  figure  of  the  Civil  War  is  not  that  of  a  soldier.  Abraham 
Lincoln  served  in  the  Black  Hawk  campaign  as  private  and 
captain.  By  virtue  of  his  office  as  president  he  was  commander- 
in-chief  of  the  federal  forces ;  but  history  records  that  his  great 
service  to  his  country  and  the  world  was  not  wrought  by  the 
sword. 

All  of  this  shows  that  we  need  to  get  away  from  the  popular 
notion,  as  typified  in  a  recent  painting  called  "A  Lesson  in 
Patriotism,"  where  an  old  man  is  teaching  a  boy  to  handle  a  gun. 
As  long  as  our  idea  of  patriotism  is  associated  with  guns,  just  so 
long  the  sense  of  civic  responsibility  will  languish  and  the  great 
constructive  interests  of  our  nation  will  be  neglected.  As  long 
as  we  have  this  false  conception  we  shall  hear  voices  in  the  time 
of  peace  asking  the  question,  as  does  Professor  Royce  in  his 
"Philosophy  of  Loyalty,"  "Are  we  really  at  present  a  highly 
patriotic  people  ?"  He  follows  this  question  with  one  that  demands 
self-examination  on  the  part  of  every  man  who  thinks  he  is 
patriotic :  "In  other  words,  how  often,  in  your  own  present  life, 
or  in  the  lives  of  your  fellow-citizens,  as  now  you  know  them,  is 
it  the  case  that  you  do  something  critical,  significant,  involving 
personal  risk  of  sacrifice  to  yourself,  and  something  which  is 
meanwhile  so  inspired  by  your  love  of  your  nation  as  a  whole 
that  you  can  say  that  just  then  you  have  neither  eyes  to  see  nor 
tongue  to  speak  save  as  the  country  itself,  in  your  opinion,  re- 
quires you  to  see  and  to  speak?"  It  is  not  a  wholesome  symptom 
that  such  questions  can  be  asked  by  those  who  sanely  regard  our 
national  life. 

There  are  indications  that  we  are  coming  to  realize  the 
supreme  importance  of  the  patriotism  of  peace.  Changes  in 
thought  are  soon  reflected  in  literary  phrase  and  popular  speech. 
You  will  notice  that  to-day  we  do  not  have  as  much  to  say  about 
patriotism  as  formerly,  and  instead  we  are  discussing  and  em- 
phasizing "good  citizenship."  The  explanation  of  the  change  in 
terms  is  not  that  we  are  losing  the  feeling  for  which  patriotism 

28 


stands,  but  rather  that  we  are  putting  vigorous  emphasis  upon 
the  performance  of  patriotic  service  in  times  and  ways  of  peace. 
Real  patriotism  is  the  animating  spirit  of  good  citizenship ;  on  the 
other  hand  good  citizenship  is  the  practical  and  working  side  of 
patriotism  under  conditions  of  peace. 

This  change  of  terms  indicates  a  hopeful  trend  from  the 
glorifying  of  an  abstract  virtue  to  the  concrete  application  of  the 
same  virtue  to  the  problems  of  the  nation  and  the  service  of  the 
republic.  There  is  a  new  passion  in  the  demand  that  the  citizens 
shall  be  actively  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  state.  The  call  to 
political  activity  in  our  times  is  not  unlike  the  call  of  a  past 
generation  to  military  service.  It  may  be  that  certain  threatening 
dangers  have  evoked  this  new  passion ;  at  any  rate,  the  passion 
is  in  evidence.  With  this  understanding  of  the  meaning  of  the 
change  we  shall  find  no  fault  with  the  fact  that  to-day  we  are 
hearing  more  about  good  citizenship  than  about  patriotism.  It 
is  simply  an  indication  that  our  emphasis  is  shifting  from  war  to 
peace,  and  that  we  are  coming  to  a  realization  that  faith  in  our 
country's  destiny,  which  has  been  a  sort  of  blind  belief,  must  be 
accompanied  by  the  works  of  peace,  or  it  is  dead. 

There  will  be  some  characteristic  changes  in  the  new  order. 
Under  the  inspiration  of  good  citizenship,  the  patriotism  of  peace, 
we  shall  not  hear  so  much  about  the  sweetness  of  dying  for 
one's  country,  but  we  shall  hear  a  great  deal  more  about  the 
duties  of  living  for  our  country,  which  is  always  as  heroic  and 
sometimes  more  difficult.  Our  orators  will  not  have  as  much 
to  say  about  rallying  round  the  flag,  but  they  will  have  some  plain, 
pungent  truths  to  utter  in  characterizing  the  citizens,  who  fail  to 
rally  around  the  ballot-box  on  election  day.  We  shall  not  hold 
our  reunions  and  tell  of  the  fierce  charges  in  which  guns  and 
bayonets  drove  back  the  enemy  and  broke  its  proud  stiength 
into  flying  fragments ;  but  ever  and  anon  we  shall  hear  the  go  id 
news  of  the  breaking  of  a  "political  machine"  under  the  impact 
of  good  citizenship  and  the  consignment  of  disabled  bosses  to 
the  care  of  the  ambulance  corps.  We  shall  not  take  the  laurel 
wreath  from  the  courage  which  charges  the  cannon's  mouth, 
but  we  shall  speak  in  glowing  terms  of  the  heroes  who  in  the 
interest  of  the  public  good  have  been  brave  enough  to  defy  the 
unscrupulous  hatred  of  private-interest  politicians  and  have  dared 
to  be  unpopular  and  abused  in  behalf  of  the  common  weal.    When 

29 


we  have  such  a  grand  army  of  the  republic  driving  the  enemy, 
winning  the  victories  of  peace,  and  standing  like  sentinels  of 
civic  righteousness  guarding  the  national  honor,  it  may  be  said  of 
our  nation,  as  of  an  institution  of  old :  "The  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  it." 


30 


The  Catholic  Church  and  Peace 

Archbishop  Edward  J.  Hanna 

IN  the  momentous  crisis  through  which  the  world  is  passing, 
in  the  final  decision  of  the  war  which  is  devastating  the  earth, 

the  attitude  of  the  Catholic  Church  must  necessarily  be  largely 
a  determining  factor.  For  in  the  struggle  her  children  number 
millions,  in  the  councils  for  peace  they  must  have  large  repre- 
sentation, and  her  guidance  will  be  sought  in  the  adjustment  of  a 
cause  where  justice  and  mercy  and  right  ought  to  prevail. 

To-night  there  sits  in  a  little  room  in  one  of  the  world's 
greatest  palaces  a  lonely  man,  upon  whom  the  burden  of  a  world, 
upon  whom  the  sins  of  men  rest  oh !  so  heavily.  Of  noble  lineage, 
of  high  place  in  men's  esteem,  he  is  nobler,  he  is  higher  than 
kings  and  princes  by  reason  of  his  priestly  office.  His  rule  is 
vaster  than  that  of  all  the  kings  on  earth,  and  his  cause  more 
sacred.  The  confines  of  the  earth  are  the  boundaries  of  his 
empire,  and  hundreds  of  millions  of  the  noblest,  the  purest,  the 
truest,  the  most  cultured  of  earth's  sons  give  to  him  loyal,  faith- 
ful obedience.  He  has  been  shorn  of  all  temporal  sovereignty, 
he  rules  in  the  world  by  truth,  by  justice,  by  kindly  mercy,  by 
love.  The  kings  and  warring  princes  of  earth  listen  to  his  voice, 
and  he  has  been  able  where  others  have  failed,  to  mitigate  the 
awfulness  of  the  present  struggle,  to  obtain  an  exchange  of 
prisoners,  to  protect  the  aged,  to  give  comfort  to  the  wounded  and 
to  the  dying,  to  solace  the  last  hours  of  the  fallen,  to  accentuate 
the  greater  brotherhood  of  mankind  in  spite  of  war's  opposition. 
In  his  messages,  which  go  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  he  implores 
his  children  to  pray  that  peace  may  come,  for  he  feels  that  there 
are  crises  in  human  aflFairs  when  there  is  naught  to  do  save  to  get 
on  our  knees,  as  Lincoln  once  said,  and  to  beg  the  God  of  battles 
in  mercy  to  end  the  struggle. 

Listen,  if  you  will,  to  his  prayer  addressed  to  Christ :  "Dur- 
ing Thy  life  on  earth  Thy  heart  beat  with  tender  compassion 
for  the  sorrows  of  men ;  in  this  hour  made  terrible  with  burning 
hate,  with  bloodshed  and  with  slaughter,  once  more  may  Thy 

31 


divine  Heart  be  moved  to  pity.  Pity  the  countless  mothers  in 
anguish  for  the  fate  of  their  sons ;  pity  the  numberless  families 
now  bereaved  of  their  fathers ;  pity  Europe  over  which  broods 
such  havoc  and  disaster.  Do  Thou  inspire  rulers  and  peoples 
with  counsels  of  meekness;  do  Thou  heal  the  discords  that  tear 
the  nations  asunder;  do  Thou  bring  men  together  once  more  in 
loving  harmony,  Thou  Who  didst  shed  Thy  precious  blood  that 
they  might  live  as  brothers.  And  as  once  before  to  the  cry  of 
the  Apostle  Peter,  'Save  us,  Lord,  we  perish,'  Thou  didst  answer 
with  words  of  mercy  and  didst  still  the  raging  waves,  so  now 
deign  to  hear  our  trustful  prayer,  and  give  back  to  the  world 
peace  and  tranquility.'  " 

He  implores  Christian  kings  and  Christian  rulers  to  consider 
the  value  of  human  life,  and  the  inalienable  rights  of  men  to  the 
pursuit  of  things  that  have  greatest  worth.  He  tells  them  that 
war  has  come  because  men  no  longer  love,  but  hate ;  he  tells  them 
that  to  slaughter  men,  and  to  destroy  the  monuments  of  their 
genius  for  race  or  national  predominance  is  wrong;  he  boldly 
asserts  that  money  and  treasure  and  commerce  cannot  justify 
the  killing  of  millions  of  men  made  in  God's  image  and  destined 
unto  the  vision  of  the  Most  High ;  he  insists  that  a  war  of  mere 
conquest  in  which  kings  fight  for  material  aggrandizement  only, 
must  lie  beneath  the  censure  of  heaven  as  an  offense  against 
humankind ;  and  finally,  he  hesitates  not  to  tell  the  world  that 
war  and  ruin  threaten  the  land  because  men  have  not  hearkened 
unto  the  voice  of  God,  because  men  have  hardened  their  hearts, 
because  men  have  risen  up  against  God  and  against  His  Christ, 
because  men  have  despised  revealed  wisdom,  and  fashioned 
unto  themselves  strange  gods.  In  his  prayer  for  peace,  in  his 
attitude  towards  war,  in  his  endeavor  to  mitigate  war's  horrors, 
Benedict  XV  is  but  following  the  traditional  policy  of  the  Church 
through  the  centuries. 

The  Christian  code  begets  a  spirit  that  is  uncommonly  un- 
congenial with  war.  The  character  engendered  by  the  following 
of  Christ  will  tend  to  the  avoidance  of  war  where  there  is  another 
honorable  alternative,  and  in  the  light  of  Christ  war,  with  its 
appalling  loss  of  treasure,  becomes  right  only  when  actual  aggres- 
sion takes  place,  becomes  right  only  when  liberty  and  freedom  to 
develop  inherent  human  rights  are  threatened  or  violated,  and  to 
prevent  such  violation  there  is  no  alternative  save  battle.    But 

32 


when  in  times  past  war  has  devastated  the  land,  and  filled  the 
earth  with  its  carnage,  then  the  Catholic  Church  has  sought  at 
least  to  mitigate  its  evils. 

May  I  recall,  in  passing,  "the  truce  of  God"  and  its  beneficent 
effects.  May  I  recall  that  from  the  "truce  of  God"  has  come 
our  international  law,  our  international  arbitration.  May  I  re- 
call the  Religious  Orders  established  to  redeem  the  captive,  to 
furnish  solace  to  those  whom  war  had  rendered  useless  and  out- 
casts. May  I  recall  the  great  Democratic  revival  under  the  gentle 
St.  Francis,  which  helped  to  break  the  power  of  the  feudal  lord, 
and  did  more  than  anything  else  to  stop  that  bloodshed  and  pil- 
lage for  which  there  was  neither  law  nor  right.  May  I  recall  the 
efforts  of  our  Holy  Father  to  bring  truce  at  the  last  Christmastide, 
and  the  efforts  he  is  now  making  to  stop  carnage  before  the 
cup  of  bitterness  overflows. 

And  so,  traditionally,  the  great  Church  stands  for  peace, 
and  permits  war  only  when  in  honor  aggression  demands  re- 
sistance, only  when  human  rights  can  in  no  other  way  be  guaran- 
teed. In  keeping  with  the  same  traditions,  when  war  has 
brought  ruin,  the  Church  has  tried  to  mitigate  its  horrors,  and  in 
ways  known  to  herself,  to  bring  combatants  to  a  realization  of 
those  things  which  make  in  the  end  for  honorable  peace. 

If  then  you  ask,  does  the  Ancient  Church  stand  to-day  for 
peace,  I  can  but  point  to  her  honorable  record  through  the  ages. 
If  you  ask,  does  the  Ancient  Church  do  aught  to  bring  peace, 
I  can  but  point  to  the  action  of  Benedict  XV  and  the  Bishops  of 
Europe,  in  the  struggle  which  to-day  paralyzes  the  earth.  If 
you  ask,  does  the  Ancient  Church  point  the  way  to  a  new  "peace 
of  God,"  I  can  tell  you  of  prayer  to  the  God  of  battles,  I  can 
tell  you  of  her  doctrine  on  the  value  of  human  life,  of  man's 
mighty  dignity  and  mighty  place,  and  in  the  light  of  that  doctrine, 
I  can  point  triumphantly  to  the  teaching  of  her  Doctors,  in  ac- 
cordance with  which  war  is  unjust  when  carried  on  save  for 
national  honor,  national  integrity,  human  rights.  I  can  point  to 
her  traditions  in  accordance  with  which  all  the  kingdoms  of 
earth,  and  all  earth's  treasure  can  not  compare  for  a  moment  to 
the  loss  of  human  life  and  the  value  of  the  human  soul.  If  you 
ask,  can  the  Church  to-day  help  actively  in  restoring  the  world 
to  the  pursuits  of  peace,  I  can  but  tell  you  that  she  has  no  terri- 
torial interests,  nor  does  she  ask  the  freedom  of  the  seas  for  her 

33 


galleons ;  that  in  her  there  is  no  distinction  between  Greek  and 
Barbarian,  Slave  and  Free ;  that  her  children  of  every  nation  are 
national  in  the  sense  of  being  patriotic,  not  because  in  matters 
of  faith  and  of  principle  they  are  separate  from  Catholics  else- 
where ;  that  her  influence,  in  accord  with  her  teaching,  will  make 
men  value  less  the  things  that  pass,  value  more  the  things  that 
must  remain — justice,  truth,  right,  mercy,  helpfulness,  love — 
and  that  when  men  really  value  things  of  earth  in  accordance 
with  her  standards,  and  not  till  then,  will  there  dawn  that  day 
of  peace  for  which  we  pray,  will  there  appear  that  vision  of 
brotherhood  for  which  we  long,  and  for  which  this  magnificent 
assemblage  stands  as  a  powerful  witness. 

As  children  of  the  greatest  of  the  neutral  nations  we  gather 
here  to-night  hosts  to  the  earth's  seekers  after  peace.  What  is 
my  message,  what  is  the  message  of  the  Church  to  you?  A 
spiritual  ideal  watched  at  the  cradle  of  the  American  Republic, 
and  the  heroes  of  the  Revolution  fought  not  because  they  hated 
their  brothers,  fought  not  for  territorial  aggrandizement,  fought 
not  for  commercial  supremacy,  but  for  a  spiritual  ideal  that  em- 
braced the  right  to  live  for  the  best  things  of  life,  the  right  to 
liberty,  the  right  to  pursue  happiness  in  the  ways  of  peace.  And 
in  the  days  of  our  civil  strife  our  Fathers  were  willing  to  shed  the 
last  drop  of  their  blood  that  our  national  integrity  might  not  be 
impaired,  that  human  beings  might  be  free.  We  have  grown 
selfish  in  the  heyday  of  our  prosperity,  and  we  prize,  I  fear,  too 
much,  treasure  and  gold,  and  our  ideals  have  at  times  a  com- 
mercial taint,  and  we  are  in  danger,  alas !  I  sometimes  fear  grave 
danger,  of  facing  the  very  conditions  we  deplore  to-day  in  Europe, 
but  in  spite  of  all  this  we  can,  as  Americans,  lift  our  voice  and 
proclaim  to  a  warring  world  that  our  great  spiritual  idealism, 
and  our  glory  in  our  spiritual  conquest  still  remain,  and  that  to  the 
nation  that  would  call  into  danger  this  spiritual  inheritance  we 
dare  say  that  we  are  ready,  and  we  must  be  ready,  to  exhaust 
our  treasure,  and  to  spill  our  blood.  All  else  that  makes  for  the 
nation's  greatness  we  shall  gain  not  by  arms,  not  by  blood,  not 
by  martial  prowess,  but  by  patient,  honorable,  brotherly  love,  by 
that  friendly  arbitration  which  has  become  the  great  American 
path  to  peace. 

In  advancing  these  great  American  ideals,  be  sure  that  you 
have  W'ith  you  all  the  power  of  the  Catholic  Church,  for  she 

34 


will  stand  in  serried  array  for  our  spiritual  ideals,  she  will  keep 
before  men's  minds  the  dignity  of  man,  she  will  teach  him  a  right 
standard  of  values,  she  will  keep  him  strong  in  adversity,  humble 
in  the  success  and  abundance  of  life,  she  will  teach  him  that  the 
man  of  heroic  mold  is  the  man  that  is  willing  to  serve  and  to 
help.  And  while  she  keeps  his  eye  on  heaven,  will  teach  man  how 
he  can  make  nobler  and  better  the  conditions  of  earth.  She 
will  teach  him  what  is  the  real  brotherhood  of  mankind,  with- 
out distinction  of  race  or  of  color,  and  that  only  in  peace  can 
man  obtain  earth's  highest  blessings. 

And  finally,  in  the  great  reconstruction  that  must  come  after 
the  exhaustion  of  war,  she  will  bring  the  wisdom  and  the  love 
of  twenty  centuries  to  healing  the  wounds  of  hatred  and  revenge. 

Here  in  this  favored  spot  of  earth  will  she  welcome  through 
her  Golden  Gate  the  discontented  of  the  warring  world,  and  as 
the  Samaritan  of  old  she  will  bind  up  his  wounds,  and  pour  in 
the  oil  of  healing  and  the  wine  of  brotherly  love.  And  as  of  old 
she  took  the  savage  tribes  of  the  North  and  molded  out  of  them 
the  great  Mediaeval  Europe,  so  too  will  she  help  you  to  gather 
in  the  men  mad  with  sight  of  blood,  and  restore  them  unto  their 
spiritual  inheritance,  and  make  of  them  one  great  people  for  the 
honor  of  the  race,  and  the  glory  of  the  American  name,  and  the 
exaltation  of  those  ideals  which  can  never  come  save  in  the 
vision  of  peace. 


35 


The  Epic  of  Peace 

Rabbi  Martin  A.  Meyer 

ISRAEL'S  vision  is  peace"  was  a  bit  of  phraseology  which 
has    crystallized   itself    in    the    last    half    century    here    in 

America,  as  indicative  of  the  ideals  for  which  the  people  of 
Israel  have  been  striving  and  still  are  striving  through  their 
historical  experience  of  four  thousand  years.  It  sounds  strange 
indeed  for  those  who  know  the  sanguinary  record  of  Israel  that 
such  words  should  find  expression  as  indicative  of  the  standards 
of  the  people  of  the  ancient  book,  of  the  mother  of  religion,  and 
the  parent  of  churches.  Sanguinary  indeed  has  its  history  been, 
friends  both  by  what  Jews  themselves  have  done,  and  by  reason 
of  those  things  which  have  been  done  to  Jews,  a  story  of  tears 
and  of  blood ;  yet  it  is  not  the  occasion  to-night  to  stress  this 
record,  precious  though  that  blood  may  be  to  me.  Rather  it  is 
our  purpose  to  stress  those  ideals  both  expressed  by  word  and 
deed  for  which  a  people  have  suffered  and  served  and  lived  and 
died  throughout  the  centuries  which  have  been,  and  for  which 
they  are  still  ready  in  this  day  and  generation  to  offer  themselves 
and  their  lives  and  their  all,  with  the  reliable  ideals  of  human 
kind,  as  first  spoken  at  Sinai,  and  repeated  in  every  age  and 
generation  by  prophets  and  seers,  by  Psalmist  and  sage,  that  these 
ideals  might  some  day  be  the  common  possessions  of  human 
kind. 

Friends,  there  are  a  number  of  great  epics  which  have  come 
down  to  us  from  the  past  of  the  race — literary  epics,  if  you  will, 
devoted  to  the  glorification  of  war,  and  the  works  of  war,  and 
the  heroes  of  war — the  Iliad,  the  Odyssey,  and  the  Aeniaed, 
and  whatever  and  however  may  be  termed  those  great  literary 
creations  which  sprung  out  of  the  hearts  of  the  people  of  classic 
antiquity,  or  of  the  medieval  world — literary  epics,  thrilling  the 
hearts  and  souls  of  men,  inspiring  the  lives  of  thousands  and 
tens  of  thousands  of  students  in  every  age  and  generation  with 
their  ideals  of  blood  and  destruction,  given  over  to  the  glorifica- 
tion of  war,  and  to  the  exortation  of  those  ideals  which  we  asso- 
ciate with  the  war. 

36 


There  has  been  Hved  for  forty  centuries  an  epic  beginning 
with  the  story  of  the  Creation,  and  whose  last  canto  has  not 
yet  been  written.  It  is  the  Hving  history  of  the  people  of  Israel, 
who  have  sung  not  of  war  and  of  arms,  who  have  chanted  not 
of  glorification  of  deeds  of  lust  and  of  plunder,  but  who  quietly, 
silently,  by  the  weapons  of  the  spirit  have  given  to  the  world  a 
glorious  ideal  of  turning  the  spears  into  ploughshares,  and 
pointing  incidentally  through  the  ages  to  the  glorious  consumma- 
tion of  human  histor>%  when  nations  should  learn  war  no  more, 
and  each  man  might  sit  under  his  own  vine  and  fig  tree,  and 
none  would  make  him  afraid. 

It  is  not  that  the  Jew  has  not  been  ready  to  fight  when  the 
call  of  his  particular  nation  w^as  brought  to  his  ears  and  warm  in 
his  heart.  He  has  been  ready  to  fight  other  circumstances  and 
conditions  which  do  high  honor  to  his  feeling  of  patriotism  and 
his  sentiments  of  loyalty  and  devotion,  for  most  generally,  save 
in  a  few  of  the  most  favored  nations  of  western  Europe,  and  in 
particular  this  glorious  land  of  liberty,  most  generally  he  has 
been  a  step-child  of  the  nation,  and  has  been  asked  to  fight  wars 
for  benefits  which  he  would  not  enjoy,  and  whose  results  chiefly, 
in  his  particular  case,  have  been  a  renewal  of  anti-racial  out- 
bursts, and  anti-Jewish  demonstrations.  But  his  great  weapon 
has  been  the  weapon  of  the  spirit,  a  marvelous  loyalty,  and  un- 
questioned courage,  devotion  to  an  ideal,  unswerving  faith  in  the 
future — ^the  weapons  of  the  spirit  for  which  he  has  been  dedicated 
to  that  prophetic  ideal — "Not  by  might,  nor  by  power,  but  by 
my  spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts."  He  has  not  sought  war, 
because  he  did  not  believe  that  war  was  a  solution — a  lasting 
solution — of  the  problems  which  grow  out  of  the  inter-actions 
of  humans,  the  one  upon  the  other.  He  did  not  believe  in  war 
as  the  ultimate  appeal  of  the  human,  and  if  it  be  a  temerity  that 
has  prompted  him  not  to  glorify  war,  then  must  you  men  and 
women  of  this  age  and  nation  who,  assembling  in  these  great  con- 
ferences for  peace  here  and  elsewhere,  demonstrate  by  your  pres- 
ence, by  your  protestations,  and  by  your  support  that  you,  too, 
believe  that  like  the  divine  forgiveness,  a  man  may  fall  seventy 
times  seven  times,  and  yet  still  share  in  the  loving  mercy  of  the 
Father.  So,  too,  nations  should  try  seventy  times  seven  times 
before  they  ever  think  of  appealing  to  the  arbitrament  of  brute 
force  in  the  determination  of  matters  which  are  fundamentally 

37 


spiritual  questions.  And  whatever  may  be  the  value  of  material- 
ism as  a  philanthropy,  whatever  appeal  it  may  make  to  many  of 
our  fellow  men,  it  certainly  is  incapable  of  solving  finally 
and  upon  a  lasting  basis  the  questions  of  a  human  soul,  and  the 
questions  which  agitate  human  minds,  and  which  bring  them 
to  the  verge  of  war,  and  which  plunge  them  to  the  vortex  of 
arms,  the  primary  and  fundamentally  spiritual  questions,  ques- 
tions of  honor  and  national  integrity,  and  of  justice  and  righteous- 
ness, of  loyalty  and  of  faith,  and  no  appeal  to  arms  can  ever 
satisfactorily  settle  these  fundamental,  these  lastingly  eternally 
spiritual  questions  of  the  human  race. 

The  epic  of  the  future,  friends — the  epic  of  the  future  will  be 
the  universalization  of  the  experience  of  Israel  of  the  forty 
centuries  past.  That  has  been  the  role  of  Israel  among  the 
nations  of  the  world.  Its  purely  national  experiences  have  been 
lifted  by  the  agencies  of  its  own  interpretors  to  the  highest  degree, 
and  so  given  as  a  possession  to  all  the  peoples  of  the  earth.  The 
exodus  from  Egypt,  a  purely  national  deliverance,  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  under  the  impelling  impact  of  the  Babylonians  and 
the  Romans,  the  conflict  of  nations,  of  these  things  of  purely 
Israelitish  significance — it  would  seem  the  peoples  of  the  world 
have  seized  upon,  and  through  them  they  have  read  of  Him  who 
is  the  providence  of  nations,  that  power  in  ourselves  which  makes 
for  righteousness  not  only  in  our  individual  lives,  but  in  the  lives 
of  nations  and  peoples.  We  have  read  our  Book  of  Psalms, 
all  of  us  who  call  ourselves  either  Jew  or  Christian,  little  realiz- 
ing that  they  represent  the  need  of  the  individual  Israelite, 
who  therein  poured  forth  his  bleeding  heart  and  despairing  soul 
to  the  God  of  the  Universe,  speaking  as  a  Jew  his  Jewish  ex- 
perience; but  the  world  has  seized  upon  his  experience  of  sin 
and  sorrow,  his  hope  and  his  aspirations,  and  laying  hold  upon 
them  as  its  very  own,  has  universalized  these  Jewish  experiences^ 
and  made  them  the  possession  of  millions  and  millions  of  men 
who  call  themselves  Israelites  only  by  the  spirit.  And  so  the  epic 
of  the  Jew  of  thirty  centuries  past  is  devotion  to  the  service 
or  to  the  cause  of  peace.  His  suffering  and  his  sorrow  that 
peace  might  be  established,  his  ready  sacrifice  of  himself  as  an 
international  nation,  his  devotion  to  an  ideal  preached  in  Judea 
and  disseminated  among  the  peoples  of  the  earth — these  must 
needs  be  universalized  and  enter  into  the  experience  and  into  the 
possession  of  all  the  sons  of  men. 

38 


After  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  when  the  Romans  conquered 
and  the  Jew  triumphed,  it  would  seem  that  the  arbitrament  of 
arms  was  a  false  and  eternally  unreliable  decision,  and  so  the  Jew 
devoted  himself,  not  to  the  glorification  of  the  heroes  of  war;  he 
gave  himself  to  the  cultivation  of  his  law,  of  his  faith,  and  so  for 
twenty  centuries  past  now,  the  Jew  has  not  sung  in  his  liturgy 
or  in  his  literature  of  the  heroes  of  war,  but  he  has  celebrated 
the  heroes  of  peace;  he  has  given  himself  over  instinctively, 
intuitively,  it  would  seem,  to  the  arts  and  the  sciences.  The 
heroes  of  Jewish  life  for  the  last  twenty  centuries  have  been 
our  philosophers  and  our  thinkers.  We  have  given  ourselves 
whole-heartedly  to  the  cause  of  human  reason  and  to  the  un- 
folding of  the  human  intellect,  and  in  the  last  ten  centuries,  when 
the  interests  of  men  seemed  largely  and  predominately  economic, 
the  Jew  again  has  given  himself  to  the  development  of  the  eco- 
nomic life  of  the  world,  for  through  the  economic  life  of  the 
world  and  the  development  of  the  arts  and  sciences,  he  knew 
instinctively  with  all  his  prophetic  soul — he  knew  that  way  lay 
peace;  and  his  mental  development,  which  in  many  respects  has 
inspired  the  mental  development  of  the  nations  around  about 
him,  is  indicative  of  the  things  which  the  world  might  expect  of 
all  the  rest  of  the  world  when  they  give  themselves  to  the  arts 
of  peace,  to  the  ways  of  triumph,  to  the  arts  and  the  sciences, 
to  the  cultivation  of  literary  philosophy,  science  and  art,  rather 
than  to  the  glorification  of  those  things  which  destroy. 

And  the  Jew  has  been  an  international  nation.  He  has  pre- 
served his  identity,  though  he  has  scattered  himself  and  been 
scattered  among  the  nations  of  the  world  because  he  has  not 
preached  the  military — the  purely  military — ideals  of  uniform 
peace,  with  that  uniformity  usual  in  our  army  barracks,  where 
men  rest  and  eat  and  sleep  and  perform  their  daily  functions 
under  orders  and  are  obedient  to  the  voice  of  the  trumpet  call. 
The  Jew  has  been  respected  in  his  individuality  and  personality. 
He  has  understood,  across  the  borders  of  differences  and  he  has 
consecrated  differences  by  sympathy  and  fuller  understanding. 
He  has  remained  the  international  nation,  respecting  himself  and 
respecting  his  fellows  among  the  world.  So,  friends,  after  all,  if 
there  be  any  value  in  sympathy,  if  there  be  anything  of  value  in 
mental  and  moral  effort  that  we  extend  to  our  fellows,  those  who 
are  other  than  we  are,  it  lies  largely  in  the  fact  that  they  are 

39 


other  than  we  are.  We  find  no  difficulty — the  majority  of  us 
white  men — in  sympathizing  with  the  sufifering  of  white  men, 
but  the  best  of  our  sympathy  is  when  we  can  extend  it  with 
the  same  degree  of  intensity  to  the  colored  races  of  the  world. 
It  is  easy  for  us  to  extend  sympathy  when  the  honor  of  America 
seems  to  be  involved.  Are  we  as  keen  and  as  anxious  that  the 
honor  and  the  national  integrity  of  other  nations,  sometimes 
hostile  in  their  intentions,  sometimes  opponents  to  us  in  our 
competition  for  commercial  and  industrial  success,  shall  be  main- 
tained? Are  we  as  keen  minded  and  as  sympathetic  when  ques- 
tions involving  their  integrity  are  involved?  It  is  only  when 
we  have  advanced  that  sympathy  and  understanding  are  at  all 
worth  while — and  I  believe,  therefore,  these  twenty  centuries 
the  Jew,  the  international  nation  of  the  world,  a  harbinger  of 
good  tidings,  has  shown  us  the  way  for  the  final  solution 
of  the  difficulties  of  mankind — large  and  human  sympathy,  if 
I  may  use  a  word  for  the  moment,  in  what  I  call  the  "pulse" 
of  life.  We  believe  that  civilization  is  the  "pulse"  of  peace, 
as  opposed  to  the  destruction  of  war,  and  probably  after 
this  great  internecine  conflict,  which  is  devastating  the  world 
and  taking  us  into  even  greater  efifort  on  behalf  of  the  cause 
of  peace,  when  this  great  conflict  shall  have  come  to  an  end, 
we  shall  better — all  of  us — understand  what  I  mean  by  this  doc- 
trine of  the  "pulse"  of  peace.  For,  after  all,  the  abiding  values 
will  not  be  the  destruction  of  cathedrals  and  peaceful  towns,  the 
burning  of  libraries  and  the  monuments  of  civilization  but  rather 
the  "pulse"  of  glorious  service  of  consecrated  men  and  women, 
not  with  arms  of  destruction  in  their  hands,  service  by  those 
who  are  tenderly  and  humanely  nursing  and  caring  for  the  dying 
and  wounded.  The  "pulse"  will  not  be  in  those  who  have  set 
out  to  destroy  and  tear  down  and  pluck  up,  but  the  "pulse"  will 
be  the  heroic,  the  equally  heroic,  aye,  the  still  greater  heroic 
efforts  of  that  army  of  men  and  women  who  must  come  in  the 
train  of  the  armies  of  destruction,  and  who  will  build  up  de- 
stroyed homes,  who  will  restore  broken  families,  who  will  seek 
to  heal  wounded  hearts,  who  will  attempt  to  gloss  over  and  make 
it  possible  to  forget  the  horrors  which  these  people  have  ex- 
perienced and  suffered,  and  help  them  to  begin  life  anew  on  a 
new  basis  with  a  larger  vision  and  a  deeper  understanding  of  the 
fundamental  things  of  life. 

40 


Dr.  Lynch  referred  to  what  we  have  often  heard  said,  that 
the  war  is  a  demonstration  of  the  fallacy  of  religion.  I  want  to 
say,  has  this  not  been  practically  the  most  irreligious  age  we 
have  known  in  twenty  centuries?  Is  it  not  that  there  is  war 
because  of  the  irreligion  of  Europe  and  not  because  of  the 
fallacy  of  religion?  Those  things  which  to-day  have  made  for 
war  have  been  the  constant  and  consistent  antagonism  of  religion. 
Religion  has  been  buffeted  from  corner  to  corner.  It  has  been 
laughed  out  of  court.  It  has  been  sneered  at  and  condemned. 
Calumny  has  been  heaped  upon  it,  but  it  has  persisted,  despite  the 
so-called  civilization  of  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth  century, 
and  it  has  had  the  courage  to  raise  its  voice  in  un-numbered 
quarters  in  protest  against  war  and  the  abuses  of  war.  No,  the 
present  war  is  not  a  demonstration  of  the  fallacy  of  religion  to 
meet  great  human  needs,  but  it  is,  I  take  it,  a  lasting  demonstra- 
tion of  the  impotence  of  irreligion  satisfactorily  to  solve  the 
problems  of  human  life.  It's  the  irreligious  view,  false  to 
the  ideals  of  Israel  and  Mica,  who  throws  himself  in  with 
the  combatants  and  cries,  "Let  loose  the  dogs  of  war!"  It's 
the  irreligious  Christian  who  denies  that  initiatory  consecra- 
tion of  the  Christian  life,  "peace  on  earth,  good  will  to  men," 
who  only  knows  the  passions  and  the  lusts  of  men  and  bids  them 
to  their  bitter  destruction  among  the  peoples  of  the  earth.  And 
if  the  Jewish  epic  stands  for  one  great  thing  in  the  history 
of  the  nations  of  the  world,  it  has  demonstrated  and  it  still 
insists  upon  the  abiding  value  of  the  religious  interpretation  of 
life,  that  we  have  souls,  that  our  fellows  have  souls,  and  that, 
finding  my  own  soul  and  my  fellow's  soul,  together  we  rise  to 
the  world's  soul,  to  the  God  of  love — Him  Whom  we  call  our 
Father,  to  the  God  of  all  men,  who  some  men  dare  deny. 

Friends,  in  the  service  of  every  potent  and  powerful  religion, 
the  arts  have  always  been  enlisted.  No  time  in  the  history  of 
Christianity  were  people  so  faithful  to  the  call  of  the  Christian 
life  as  when  they  gave  themselves  to  the  rearing  of  those 
master  structures,  the  cathedrals  of  Europe,  when  the  halls  and 
the  cloisters  of  cathedrals  and  churches  and  monasteries  and 
public  places  were  filled  with  the  perishable  and  the  imperish- 
able creations  of  artists  who  found  their  inspiration  in  the  re- 
ligious life,  when  people  chanted  those  songs  and  listened  to 
that  music  which  bore  their  souls  aloft,  and  made  them  feel  that 

41 


all  life  was  one  grand  victory,  for  these  things  appealed  to  their 
imaginations  and  to  their  emotions,  and  all  of  us  live  more  by  our 
imaginations  and  by  our  emotions  than  by  our  so-called  unaided 
and  unassisted  reason. 

The  cause  of  peace  will  succeed  and  will  lay  its  lasting  hold 
upon  the  hearts  of  men,  I  take  it,  when,  following  the  lead  of 
religion,  peace  and  the  peace  propaganda  shall  enlist  as  its  most 
devoted  ally  and  constituent  all  its  ideals  of  arts  and  sciences, 
and  more  particularly  the  arts,  for  the  epic  of  the  future,  the 
epic  of  peace  will  not  glorify  war  and  the  heroes  of  war  and 
the  works  of  war,  but  will  glorify  peace  and  the  heroes  of  peace 
and  the  works  of  peace,  when  we  shall  be  under  the  spell  of  an 
immemorial  art  which  will  bring  the  power  of  imagination,  and 
so  fashion  our  hearts  and  souls  and  command  our  loving  loyalty, 
when  it  will  throw  the  faith  of  its  magic  over  forge  and  factory, 
when  we  shall  speak  in  phrases  equal  to  those  of  the  Iliad  and 
the  Odyssey,  when  we  shall,  in  music  which  will  thrill  the  human 
soul,  tell  the  glories  of  an  exposition,  of  the  wonders  of  a  Yellow- 
stone, then  will  peace  be  established  in  the  hearts  of  men,  and  the 
"epic  of  the  future"  will  be  not  of  wars  but  of  the  world ;  it  will 
not  be  of  letters,  but  it  will  be  of  men ;  it  will  not  be  of  the  past, 
but  it  will  be  of  the  future ;  not  of  death,  but  of  life ;  not  of  war, 
but  of  peace ! 


42 


War,   Business  and  Insurance 
Prof.  David  Starr  Jordan 

THE  complications  behind  the  war  in  Europe  are  very  many, 
the  revival  of  a  waning  military  aristocracy,  the  suppres- 
sion of  democracy,  the  restoration  of  the  Holy  Roman 
Empire  with  its  historical  equipment,  imperial  and  ecclesiastic, 
ruthless  exploitation,  heartless  and  brainless  diplomacy,  futile 
dreams  of  national  expansion  (the  "Mirage  of  the  Map"),  of 
national  enrichment  through  the  use  of  force  (the  "Great 
Illusion"),  and,  withal,  a  widespread  vulgar  belief  in  indemnities 
or  highway  robberies  as  a  means  of  enriching  a  nation. 

All  these  would  represent  only  the  unavoidable  collision, 
unrest  and  ambition  of  human  nature,  were  it  not  that  every 
element  involved  in  it  was  armed  to  the  teeth.  "When  blood  is 
their  argument"  in  matters  of  business  or  politics,  all  rational 
interests  are  imperilled.  The  gray  old  strategists,  to  whom  the 
control  of  armament  was  assigned,  saw  the  nations  moving 
towards  peaceful  solution  of  their  real  and  imaginary  difficulties. 
The  young  men  of  Europe  had  visions  of  a  broader  world,  one 
cleared  of  lies  and  hate  and  the  poison  of  an  ingrowing  patriotism. 
After  a  generation  of  doubt  and  pessimism  in  which  world  prog- 
ress seemed  to  end  in  a  blind  sack,  there  was  rising  a  vision 
of  continental  co-operation,  a  glimpse  of  the  time  when  science, 
always  international,  should  also  internationalize  the  art  of  living. 

Qearly  the  close  season  for  war  was  near  at  hand.  The 
old  men  found  means  to  bring  it  on  and  in  so  doing  to  exploit 
the  patriotism,  enthusiasm,  devotion  and  love  of  adventure  of 
th€  young  men  of  the  whole  world. 

The  use  of  fear  and  force  as  an  argument  in  politics  or  in 
business — this  is  war.  It  is  a  futile  argument  because  of  itself, 
it  settles  nothing.  Its  conclusion  bears  no  certain  relation  to  its 
initial  aim.  It  must  end  where  it  should  begin,  with  an  agreement 
among  the  parties  concerned.  War  is  only  the  blind  negation,  the 
denial  of  all  law,  and  only  the  recognition  of  the  supremacy  of 
some  law  can  bring  it  to  an  end.     In  time  of  war  all  laws  are 

43 


silent  as  are  all  efforts  for  progress,  for  justice,  for  the  better- 
ment of  human  kind.  If  history  were  written  truthfully,  every 
page  in  the  story  of  war  would  be  left  blank  or  printed  blacK, 
with  only  fine  white  letters  in  the  darkness  to  mark  the  efforts 
for  humanity,  which  war  can  never  wholly  suppress. 

In  this  paper,  I  propose  to  consider  only  economic  effects 
of  this  war  and  with  special  reference  to  the  great  industry  which 
brings  most  of  this  audience  together,  the  business  of  insurance. 

The  great  war  debts  of  the  nations  of  Europe  began  with 
representative  government.  Kings  borrowed  money  when  they 
could,  bankrupting  themselves  at  intervals  and  sometimes  wreck- 
ing their  nations.  Kings  have  always  been  uncertain  pay.  Not 
many  loaned  money  to  them  willingly  and  only  in  small  amounts 
and  at  usurious  rates  of  interest.  To  float  a  "patriotic  loan," 
it  was  often  necessary  to  make  use  of  the  prison  or  the  rack. 
With  the  advent  of  parliaments  and  chambers  of  deputies,  the 
credit  of  nations  improved  and  it  became  easy  to  borrow  money. 
There  was  developed  a  special  class  of  financiers,  the  Roths- 
childs at  their  head,  pawnbrokers  rather  than  bankers,  men  able 
and  willing  to  take  a  whole  nation  into  pawn.  And  with  the 
advent  of  great  loans,  as  Goldwin  Smith  wisely  observed,  there 
was  removed  the  last  check  on  war. 

With  better  social  and  business  adjustments,  and  especially 
with  the  progress  of  railways  and  steam  navigation  with  other 
applications  of  science  to  personal  and  national  interests,  the  pro- 
cess or  borrowing  became  easier,  as  also  the  payment  of  interest 
on  which  borrowing  depends.  Hence  more  borrowing,  always 
the  easiest  solution  of  any  financial  complication  or  embarrass- 
ment. Through  the  substitution  of  regular  methods  of  taxation 
for  the  collection  of  tribute,  the  nations  became  solidified.  Only 
a  solidified  nation  can  borrow  money.  The  loose  and  lawless 
regions  called  Kingdoms  and  Empires  under  feudalism  were  not 
nations  at  all.  A  nation  is  a  region  in  which  the  people  are 
normally  at  peace  among  themselves.  In  civil  war,  a  nation's  ex- 
istence may  be  dissolved. 

In  all  the  ages  war  costs  all  that  it  can.  All  that  can  be 
extorted  or  borrowed  is  cast  into  the  melting  pot,  for  the  sake 
of  self-preservation  or  for  the  sake  of  victory.  If  the  nations 
had  any  more  to  give,  war  would  demand  it.     The  king  could 

44 


extort,  but  there  are  limits  to  extortion.  The  nation  could  bor- 
row, and  to  borrowing  there  is  but  one  limit,  the  limit  of  actual 
exhaustion. 

Mr.  H.  Bell,  cashier  of  Lloyd's  Bank  in  London,  said  in 
1913,  "The  London  bankers  are  not  lending  on  the  continent  any 
more.  We  can  see  already  the  handwriting  on  the  wall  and  that 
spells  REPUDIATION.  The  people  of  Europe  will  say,  'We 
know  that  we  have  had  all  this  money  and  that  we  ought  to  pay 
interest  on  it.    But  we  must  live ;  and  we  cannot  live  and  pay.'  " 

The  chief  motive  for  borrowing  on  the  part  of  every  nation 
has  been  war  or  preparation  for  war.  If  it  were  not  for  war  no 
nation  on  earth  need  ever  have  borrowed  a  dollar.  If  provinces 
and  municipalities  could  use  all  the  taxes  their  people  pay,  for 
purposes  of  peace,  they  could  pay  off  all  their  debts  and  start 
free.  In  Europe,  for  the  last  hundred  years,  in  time  of  so-called 
peace,  nations  have  paid  more  for  war  than  for  anything  else. 
It  is  not  strange,  therefore,  that  this  armed  peace  has  "found 
its  verification  in  war."  It  has  been  the  "Dry  War,"  the  "Race 
for  the  Abyss,"  which  the  gray  old  strategists  of  the  General 
Staff  have  brought  to  final  culmination. 

The  debt  of  Great  Britain  began  with  the  revolution  of  1869, 
with  about  $1,250,000.  This  unpopular  move,  known  as  "Dutch 
Finance"  was  the  work  of  William  of  Orange.  Other  loans 
followed,  based  on  customs  duties  with  "taxes  on  bachelors, 
widows,  marriages  and  funerals,"  and  the  profits  on  lotteries. 
At  the  end  of  the  War  of  the  Revolution  the  debt  reached 
$1,250,000,000,  and  with  the  gigantic  borrowings  of  Pitt,  in  the 
interest  of  the  overthrow  of  Napoleon,  the  debt  reached  its  highest 
point  $4,430,000,000.  The  savings  of  peace  duly  reduced  this 
debt,  but  the  Boer  War,  for  which  about  $800,000,000  was  bor- 
rowed swept  these  savings  away.  When  the  present  war  began 
the  national  debt  had  been  reduced  to  a  little  less  than  $4,000,- 
000,000,  which  sum  a  year  of  world  war  has  brought  up  to 
about  $11,000,000,000. 

The  debt  of  France  dates  from  the  French  Revolution. 
Through  reckless  management  it  soon  rose  to  $700,000,000,  which 
sum  was  cut  by  paper  money,  confiscation  and  other  repudiations 
to  $160,000,000.  This  process  of  easing  the  government  at  the 
expense  of  the  people  spread  consternation  and  bankruptcy  far 

45 


and  wide.  A  great  program  of  public  expenditure,  following  the 
costly  war  and  its  soon  paid  indemnity,  raised  the  debt  of  France 
to  over  $6,000,000,000.  The  interest  alone  amounted  to  nearly 
$1,000,000,000.  A  year  of  the  present  war  has  brought  this  debt 
to  an  unprecedented  figure.  Thus  nearly  two  million  bond  holders 
and  their  families  in  and  out  of  France  have  become  annual 
pensioners  on  the  public  purse,  in  addition  to  all  the  pensioners 
produced  by  war. 

Germany  is  still  a  very  young  nation  and  as  an  empire  more 
thrifty  than  her  largest  state.  The  imperial  debt  was  in  1908  a 
little  over  $1,000,000,000.  The  total  debt  of  the  empire  and  the 
states  combined  was  about  $4,000,000,000  at  the  outbreak  of  the 
war.  It  is  now  stated  at  about  $10,000,000,000,  a  large  part  of 
the  increase  being  in  the  form  of  "patriotic"  loans  from  help- 
less corporations. 

The  small  debt  of  the  United  States  rose  after  the  Civil  War 
to  $2,773,000,000.  It  has  been  reduced  to  about  $915,000,000, 
proportionately  less  than  in  any  other  civilized  nation.  The  local 
debts  of  states  and  municipalities  in  this  and  other  countries  are, 
however,  very  large  and  are  steadily  rising.  As  Mr.  E.  S.  Martin 
observes,  "We  have  long  since  passed  the  simple  stage  of  living 
beyond  our  incomes.  We  are  engaged  in  living  beyond  the 
incomes  of  generations  to  come." 

Let  me  illustrate  by  a  suppositious  example.  A  nation  has 
an  expenditure  of  $100,000,000  a  year.  It  raises  the  sum  by  tax- 
ation of  some  sort  and  thus  lives  within  its  means.  But  $100,000,- 
000  is  the  interest  on  a  much  larger  sum,  let  us  say  $2,500,000,000. 
If  instead  of  paying  out  a  hundred  million  year  by  year  for 
expenses,  we  capitalize  it,  w^e  may  have  immediately  at  hand  a 
sum  twenty-five  times  as  great.  The  interest  on  this  sum  is  the 
same  as  the  annual  expense  account.  Let  us  then  borrow 
$2,500,000,000,  on  which  the  interest  charges  are  $100,000,000  a 
year.  But  while  paying  these  charges  the  nation  has  the  principal 
to  live  on  for  a  generation.  Half  of  it  will  meet  current  expenses 
for  a  dozen  years,  and  the  other  half  is  at  once  available  for  public 
purposes,  for  dockyards,  for  wharves,  for  fortresses,  for  public 
buildings,  and  above  all  for  the  ever  growing  demands  of  military 
conscription  and  of  naval  power.  Meanwhile  the  nation  is  not 
standing  still.  In  these  twelve  years  the  progress  of  invention 
and  of  commerce  may  have  doubled  the  national  income.   There 

46 


is  then  still  another  $100,000,000  yearly  to  be  added  to  the  sum 
available  for  running  expenses.     This  again  can  be  capitalized, 
another  $2,500,000,000  can  be  borrowed,  not  all  at  once  perhaps, 
but  with  due  regard  to  the  exigencies  of  banking  and  the  temper 
of  the  people.     With  repeated  borrowings  the  rate  of  taxation 
rises.    Living  on  the  principal  sets  a  new  fashion  in  expenditure. 
The  same  fashion  extends  throughout  the  body  politic.    Indi- 
viduals, corporations,  municipalities  all  live  on  their  principal. 
The  purchase  of  railways  and  other  public  utilities  by  the 
government  tends  further  to  complicate  the  problems  of  national 
debt.     It  is  clear  that  this  system  of  buying  without  paying 
cannot  go  on   forever.     The  growth  of  wealth  and  population 
cannot  keep  step  with  borrowing,  even  though  all  funds  were  ex- 
pended for  the  actual  needs  of  society.    Of  late  years  war  pre- 
paration has  come  to  take  the  lion's  share  of  all  funds  however 
gathered,  "consuming  the  fruits  of  progress."    What  the  end  shall 
be,  and  by  what  forces  it  shall  come,  no  one  can  now  say.    This 
is  still  a  very  rich  world  even  though  insolvent  and  under  con- 
trol of  its  creditors.    There  is  a  growing  unrest  among  taxpayers. 
There  would  be  a  still  greater  unrest  if  posterity  could  be  heard 
from,  for  it  can  only  save  itself  by  new  inventions  and  new  ex- 
ploitations or  by  frugality  of  administration,  of  which  no  nation 
gives  an  example  to-day. 

Nevertheless  this  burden  of  past  debt,  with  all  its  many 
ramifications  and  its  interest  charges,  is  not  the  heaviest  the  na- 
tions have  placed  on  themselves.  The  annual  cost  of  army  and 
navy  in  the  world  to-day  is  about  double  the  sum  of  interest 
paid  on  the  bonded  debt.  This  annual  sum  represents  prepara- 
tion for  future  war,  because  in  the  intricacies  of  modern  war- 
fare "hostilities  must  be  begun"  long  before  the  materialization 
of  any  enemy.  In  estimating  the  annual  cost  of  war  to  the 
original  interest  charges  of  upwards  of  $1,500,000,000,  we  must 
add  yearly  about  $2,500,000,000  of  actual  expenditure  for 
fighters,  gims  and  ships.  We  must  further  consider  the  generous 
allowance  some  nations  make  for  pensions.  A  large  and  un- 
estimated  sum  may  also  be  added  to  the  account  from  loss  of 
military  conscription,  again  not  counting  the  losses  to  society 
through  those  forms  of  poverty  which  have  their  primal  cause 
in  war.  For  in  the  words  of  Bastiat,  "War  is  an  ogre  that 
devours  as  much  when  he  is  asleep  as  when  he  is  awake."     It 

47 


was  Gambetta  who  foretold  that  the  final  end  of  armament  rivalry 
must  be  "a  beggar  crouching  by  a  barrack  door." 

When  the  Great  War  began,  the  nations  of  Europe  were 
thus  waist  deep  in  debt.  The  total  amount  of  national  bonded 
indebtedness  being  about  $30,000,000,000,  or  nearly  three  times 
the  total  sum  of  actual  gold  and  silver,  coined  or  not,  in  all  the 
world.  A  year  of  war  at  the  rate  of  $50,000,000  to  $70,000,000 
per  day  has  increased  this  indebtedness  to  nearly  $50,000,000,000, 
the  bonds  themselves  rated  at  half  or  less  their  normal  value, 
while  the  actual  financial  loss  through  destruction  of  life  and 
property  has  been  estimated  at  upwards  of  $40,000,000,000. 

In  "The  Unseen  Empire,"  the  forceful  and  prophetic  drama 
of  Mr.  Atherton  Brownell,  the  American  Ambassador,  Stephen 
Channing,  tries  to  show  the  Chancellor  of  Germany  that  war  with 
Great  Britain  is  not  a  "good  business  proposition."  He  says: 
"Our  Civil  War  has  cost  us  to  date,  if  you  count  pensions  for 
the  wrecks  it  left — mental  and  physical — nearly  twenty  billions  of 
dollars.  And  that  doesn't  include  property  losses,  nor  destruc- 
tion of  trade,  nor  broken  hearts  and  desolate  homes — ^that's  just 
cold  hard  cash  that  we  have  actually  paid  out.  You  can't  even 
think  of  it.  There  have  been  only  about  one  billion  minutes 
since  Christ  was  born.  Now  if  there  had  been  four  million  slaves 
and  we  had  bought  every  one  of  them  at  an  average  of  one 
thousand  dollars  a  piece,  set  them  free  and  had  no  war,  we 
would  have  been  in  pocket  to-day  just  sixteen  billion  dollars. 
That  one  crime  cost  us  in  cash  just  about  the  equal  of  sixteen 
dollars  a  minute  from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era." 

The  war,  as  forecast  in  the  play,  is  now  on  in  fact,  and  one 
certain  truth  in  regard  to  it  is  that  it  is  assuredly  not  "a  good 
business  proposition"  for  anybody  in  any  nation,  excepting,  of 
course,  the  makers  of  the  instruments  of  death. 

The  actual  war  began,  in  accord  with  Professor  Richet's 
calculation,  at  a  cost  of  $50,000,000  per  day.  Previous  to  this 
the  "Dry  War"  or  "Armed  Peace"  cost  only  $10,000,000  per  day. 
This  is  Richet's  calculation  in  1912,  an  under-estimate  as  to 
expenses  on  the  sea  and  in  the  air.  These,  with  the  growing 
scarcity  of  bread  and  shrapnel,  the  equipment  of  automobiles,  and 
the  unparalleled  ruin  of  cities,  have  raised  this  cost  to  $70,000,000 
per  day. 

48 


DAILY  COST  OF  GREAT  EUROPEAN  WAR 
(Charles  Richet,  1912) 

Feed  of  men  $12,600,000 

Feed  of  horses   1,000,000 

Pay  (European  rates)    4,250,000 

Pay  of  workmen  in  arsenals  and  ports  (100  per  day) 1,000,000 

Transportation   (60  miles  in   10  days) 2,100,000 

Transportation   of    provisions    4,200,000 

Munitions :    Infantry,   10  cartridges  a  day 4,200,0{X) 

Artillery:    10   shots   per   day 1,200,000 

Marine :    2  shots  per   day 400,000 

Equipment    4,200,000 

Ambulances:    500,000  wounded  or  ill   ($1.00  per  day) 500,000 

Warships    500,000 

Reduction  of   imports   5,000,000 

Help  to  the  poor  (20  cents  per  day  to  1  in  10) 6,800,000 

Destruction  of  towns,  etc 2,000,000 

Total   per   day    $49,950,000 

This  again  takes  no  account  of  the  waste  of  men  and  horses, 
less  costly  than  the  other  material  of  war,  and  not  necessarily 
replaced.  All  this  is  piled  on  top  of  "the  endless  caravan  of 
ciphers"  ($27,000,000,000),  which  represents  the  accumulated 
and  unpaid  war  debt  of  the  nineteenth  century. 

War  is  indeed  the  sport  for  kings,  but  it  is  no  sport  for  the 
people  who  pay  and  die,  and  in  the  long  run  the  workers  of  the 
world  must  pay  the  cost  of  it.  As  Benjamin  Franklin  observed: 
"War  is  not  paid  for  in  war  time,  the  bill  comes  later."  And 
what  a  bill! 

Yves  Guyot,  the  French  economist,  estimates  that  the  first 
six  months  of  war  cost  western  Europe  in  cash  $5,400,000,000,  to 
which  should  be  added  further  destruction  estimated  at 
$11,600,000,000,  making  a  total  of  $17,000,000,000.  The  entire 
amount  of  coin  in  the  world  is  less  than  $12,000,000,000.  Edgar 
Crammond,  Secretary  of  the  Liverpool  Stock  Exchange,  another 
high  authority,  estimates  the  cash  cost  of  a  year  of  war,  to 
August  1,  1915,  at  $17,000,000,000,  while  other  losess  will  mount 
up  to  make  a  grand  total  of  $46,000,000,000  Mr.  Crammond 
estimates  that  the  cost  to  Great  Britain  for  a  year  of  war  will 
reach  $3,500,000,000  This  sum  is  about  equivalent  to  the  accumu- 
lated war  debt  of  Great  Britain  for  a  hundred  years  before  the 
war.    The  war  debt  of  Germany  is  now  about  the  same. 

49 


No  one  can  have  any  conception  of  what  $46,000,000,000  may 
be.  It  is  four  times  all  the  gold  and  silver  in  the  world.  It 
represents,  it  is  stated,  about  100,000  tons  of  gold.  It  would 
probably  outweigh  the  Washington  monument,  but  we  have  no 
data  as  to  what  momuments  weigh,  but  we  may  try  a  few  other 
calculations.  If  this  sum  were  measured  out  in  twenty-dollar 
gold  pieces,  and  they  were  placed  side  by  side  on  the  railway 
track,  on  each  rail,  they  would  line  with  gold  every  line  from 
New  York  to  the  Pacific  Ocean,  and  there  would  be  enough  left 
to  cover  each  rail  of  the  Siberian  railway  from  Vladivostock  to 
Petrograd.  There  would  still  be  enough  left  to  rehabitate 
Belgium  and  to  buy  the  whole  of  Turkey,  at  her  own  valuation, 
wiping  her  finally  from  the  map. 

Or  we  may  figure  in  some  other  fashion.  The  average  work- 
ing man  in  America  earns  $518  per  year.  It  would  take  ninety 
million  years'  work  to  pay  the  cost  of  the  war,  or  ninety  million 
American  laborers  might  pay  it  off  in  one  year,  if  all  their  living 
expenses  were  paid.  The  working  men  of  Europe  receive  from 
half  to  a  third  the  wages  in  America.  They  are  the  ones  who  have 
this  bill  to  pay. 

The  cost  of  a  year  of  the  great  war  is  a  little  greater  than 
the  estimated  value  of  all  the  property  of  the  United  States  west 
of  Chicago.  It  is  nearly  equal  to  the  total  value  of  all  the  property 
in  Germany  ($48,000,000,000),  as  figured  in  1906.  The  whole 
Russian  empire  ($35,000,000,000)  could  have  been  bought  for  a 
less  sum  before  the  war  began.  It  could  be  had  on  a  cash  sale 
more  cheaply  now.  It  would  have  paid  for  all  the  property  in 
Italy  ($13,000,000,000),  Japan  ($10,000,000,000),  Holland 
($5,000,000,000),  Belgium  ($7,000,000,000),  Spain  ($6,000- 
000,000),  and  Portugal  ($2,500,000,000).  It  is  three  times  the 
entire  yearly  earnings  in  wages  and  salaries  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States  ($15,500,000,000). 

We  could  go  on  indefinitely  with  this,  playing  with  figures 
which  nobody  can  understand,  for  the  greatest  fortune  ever 
accumulated  by  man,  in  whatever  fashion,  would  not  pay  for 
three  days  of  this  war. 

The  cost  of  this  war  would  pay  the  national  debts  of  all  the 
nations  in  the  world  at  the  time  the  war  broke  out,  and  this 
aggregate  sum  of  $45,000,000,000  for  the  world  was  all  accumu- 
lated in  the  criminal  stupidity  of  the  wars  of  the  nineteenth 

50 


century.  If  all  the  farms,  farming  lands  and  factories  of  the 
United  States  were  wiped  out  of  existence,  the  cost  of  this  war 
would  more  than  replace  them.  If  all  the  personal  and  real 
property  of  half  our  nation  were  destroyed,  or  if  an  earthquake 
of  incredible  dimensions  should  shake  down  every  house  from 
the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific,  the  waste  would  be  less  than  that 
involved  in  this  war.  And  an  elemental  catastrophe  leaves  behind 
it  no  costly  legacy  of  hate.  Even  the  financial  troubles  are  not 
ended  with  the  treaty  of  peace.  The  credit  of  Europe  is  gone  for 
one  does  not  know  how  long.  Before  the  war,  it  is  said,  there 
were  $200,000,000,000  in  bonds  and  stocks  in  circulation  in 
Europe.  Much  of  this  has  been  sold  for  whatever  it  would  bring. 
Some  of  the  rest  is  worth  its  face  value.  Some  of  it  is  worth 
nothing.  In  the  final  adjustment  who  can  know  whether  he  is  a 
banker  or  a  beggar? 

The  American  ambassador  was  quite  within  bounds  when 
he  said  "There  isn't  so  much  money  in  the  world;  you  can't 
even  think  it!" 

Or  we  may  calculate  (with  Dr.  Edward  T.  Devine)  in  a 
totally  different  way.  The  cost  of  this  war  would  have  covered 
every  moral,  social,  economic  and  sanitary  reform  ever  asked  for 
in  the  civilized  world,  in  so  far  as  money  properly  expended  can 
compass  such  results.  It  could  eliminate  infectious  disease, 
feeble-mindedness,  the  slums  and  the  centers  of  vice.  It  could 
provide  adequate  housing,  continuity  of  labor,  insurance  against 
accident;  in  other  words,  it  could  abolish  almost  every  kind  of 
suffering  due  to  outside  influences  and  not  inherent  in  the 
character  of  the  person  concerned. 

A  Russian  writer,  quoted  by  Dr.  John  H.  Finley,  puts  this 
idea  in  a  different  form : 

"Our  most  awful  enemies,  the  elements  and  germs  and 
insect  destroyers,  attack  us  every  minute  without  cease,  yet  we 
murder  one  another  as  if  we  were  out  of  our  senses.  Death  is 
ever  on  the  watch  for  us,  and  we  think  of  nothing  but  to  snatch 
a  few  patches  of  land!  About  5,000,000,000  days  of  work  go 
every  year  to  the  displacement  of  boundary  lines.  Think  of  what 
humanity  could  obtain  if  that  prodigious  effort  were  devoted  to 
fighting  our  real  enemies,  the  noxious  species  and  our  hostile 
environment.  We  should  conquer  them  in  a  few  years.  The 
entire  globe  would  turn  into  a  model  farm.     Every  plant  would 

51 


grow  for  our  use.  The  savage  animals  would  disappear,  and  the 
infinitely  tiny  animals  would  be  reduced  to  impotence  by  hygiene 
and  cleanliness.  The  earth  would  be  conducted  according  to  our 
convenience.  In  short,  the  day  men  realize  who  their  worst 
enemies  are,  they  will  form  an  alliance  against  them,  they  will 
cease  to  murder  one  another  like  wild  beasts  from  sheer  folly. 
Then  they  will  be  the  true  rulers  of  the  planet,  the  lords  of 
creation." 

"Money  spent  in  warfare,"  says  Robert  L.  Duffus,  "is  not 
like  money  spent  in  other  industries.  It  will  bring  far  more 
beastliness,  far  more  injustice,  far  more  tyranny,  far  more  danger 
to  all  that  is  honorable,  generous  and  noble  in  the  world,  far 
more  grief  and  rage  than  money  spent  in  any  other  way.  Not 
1  per  cent  of  the  amount  devoted  to  these  purposes  is,  for  the  end 
aimed  at,  wasted." 

It  is  said  that  the  main  cause  of  the  war  lay  in  the  envy 
of  German  commerce  by  British  rivals.  This  is  assuredly  not 
true.  But  if  it  were,  let  us  look  at  the  business  side  of  it.  Taking 
the  net  profits  of  over-seas  trade,  as  stated  years  ago  by  the 
Hamburg-American  Company,  the  strongest  in  the  world,  and 
estimating  the  rest,  we  have  something  Hke  this : 

During  the  "Dry  War"  the  net  earnings  of  the  German 
mercantile  fleet  were  about  one-third  the  cost  of  the  navy  supposed 
to  protect  it.  It  would  take  seventy  years  of  trade,  on  the  scale 
of  the  last  year  before  the  war,  to  repay  Germany's  expenses  for  a 
year  of  war.  To  make  good  all  the  losses  of  Europe  would 
require  more  than  one  hundred  years  of  the  over-seas  trading 
profits  of  all  the  world.  War  is  therefore  death  to  trade,  as  it  is 
to  every  other  agency  of  civilization. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  war  the  value  of  stocks  and  bonds  in 
circulation  in  Europe  amounted  to  about  $200,000,000,000.  What 
is  the  per  cent  value  of  all  these  certificates  of  ownership?  What 
is  the  present  value  of  any  particular  industrial  plant  or  com- 
mercial venture? 

A  friend  in  London  had  inherited,  through  his  German  wife, 
a  large  aniline  dye  plant  on  the  Rhine.  He  told  me  recently  that 
he  had  not  heard  one  w^ord  from  it  for  six  months.  What  will 
be  its  value  when  he  hears  from  it?  And  what  certainty  has  he 
as  to  its  ownership? 

52 


Is  this  war  the  outcome  of  commercial  jealousy?  Let  us 
look  at  this  for  a  moment.  The  two  greatest  shipping  companies 
in  the  world  before  the  war  were  the  Hamburg-American  Com- 
pany and  the  Nord-Deutscher  Lloyd  of  Bremen.  These  com- 
panies had  grown  strong  because  they  deserved  to  grow.  They 
had  attended  to  their  affairs,  both  in  shipment  of  freight  and 
transportation  of  passengers,  with  that  minute  attention  to 
details,  which  is  so  large  an  element  in  German  success.  The 
growth  of  these  companies  arose  through  American  trade,  and 
especially  through  trade  with  Great  Britain  and  the  British 
possessions.  Did  they  clamor  for  war — a  war — whatever  else 
might  result,  sure  to  cripple  their  trade  for  a  generation?  It  is 
said  that  Ballin  of  the  Hamburg  Company,  unable  to  prevent 
Great  Britain  from  rising  to  the  defense  of  Belgium,  "went  home 
broken-hearted."  Did  Ballin  build  the  great  Imperator,  costing 
$9,000,000— $6,000,000  of  it  borrowed  money— with  a  view  to 
laying  her  off  after  a  few  trips  for  an  indefinite  period  in 
Hamburg?  Did  the  Nord  Deutscher  Lloyd  contemplate  leaving 
the  Vaterland  and  the  George  Washington  to  lie  in  Hoboken  till 
they  were  sold  for  harbor  dues? 

Nor  was  the  jealousy  on  the  other  side.  The  growth  of 
German  commerce  concerned  mainly  Great  Britain.  Presumably, 
it  was  profitable  on  both  sides,  for  all  trade  is  barter.  In  any 
event,  Great  Britain  has  never  raised  a  tariff  wall  against  it, 
never  protected  her  traders  by  a  single  differential  duty.  She 
has  risen  above  the  idea  that  by  tariff  exactions  the  foreigner 
can  be  made  to  pay  the  taxes.  As  for  envy  of  German  com- 
merce, who  ever  heard  of  an  Englishman  who  envied  anybody 
anything  ? 

Again,  did  the  Cunard  Company  build  her  three  great  steam- 
ships, the  Mauretania,  the  Lusitania,  the  Aquitania,  for  the  fate 
which  has  come  to  them?  In  1914  I  saw  the  great  Aquitania, 
finest  of  all  floating  palaces,  tied  by  the  nose  to  the  wharf  at 
Liverpool,  the  most  sheepish  looking  steamship  I  ever  saw  any- 
where. Out  of  her  had  been  taken  $1,250,000  worth  of  plate 
glass  and  plate  velvet,  elevators  and  lounging  rooms,  the  require- 
ments of  the  tender  rich  in  their  six  days  upon  the  sea.  The 
whole  ship  was  painted  black,  filled  with  coal,  to  be  sent  out  to 
help  the  warships  at  sea.  And  for  this  humble  service,  I  am  told, 
she  proved  unfitted. 

53 


No,  commercial  envy  is  not  a  reason,  rivalry  in  business  is 
not  a  reason,  need  of  expansion  is  not  a  reason.  These  are 
excuses  only,  not  causes  of  war.  There  is  no  money  in  war. 
There  is  no  chance  of  highway  robbery  in  the  byways  of  history 
which  can  repay  anything  tangible  of  the  expense  of  the  expedi- 
tion. The  gray  old  strategists  do  not  care  for  this.  It  is  fair 
to  them  to  say  they  are  not  sordid.  They  care  no  more  for  the 
financial  exhaustion  of  a  nation  than  for  the  slaughter  of  its 
young  men.  "An  old  soldier  like  me,"  said  Napoleon,  "does  not 
care  a  tinker's  damn  for  the  death  of  a  million  men."  Neither 
does  he  care  for  the  collapse  of  a  million  industrial  corporations. 

Of  the  many  forms  of  business  and  financial  relation  among 
men,  none  is  more  important  than  those  included  under  the  name 
of  insurance.  Insurance  is  a  form  of  mutual  help.  By  its  influence 
the  eflfects  of  calamity  are  spread  so  widely  that  they  cease  to 
appear  as  calamity.  The  fact  of  death  cannot  be  set  aside,  but 
through  insurance  it  need  not  appear  as  economic  disaster  as  well 
as  personal  loss.  The  essential  nature  is  that  of  social  co-opera- 
tion, and  it  furnishes  some  of  the  most  effective  of  bonds,  which 
knit  society  together.  As  insurance  has  become  already  an  inter- 
national function  its  influence  should  be  felt  continuously  on  the 
side  of  peace.  That  it  is  so  felt  is  the  justification  of  our  meeting 
together  to-day  as  underwriters  of  insurance  and  as  workers  for 
peace.  The  essence  of  insurance,  as  Professor  Royce  observes,  is 
that  "it  is  a  principle  at  once  peacemaking  in  its  general  tendency 
and  business-like  in  its  practicable  special  application."  "As  a 
result  of  insurance,  men  gradually  find  themselves  involved  in  a 
social  network  of  complicated  but  beneficent  relations,  of  which 
individuals  are  usually  very  imperfectly  aware,  but  by  means  of 
which  modern  society  has  been  profoundly  transformed." 

For  life  insurance  in  general  is  not  personally  selfish  in  its 
motive.  It  is  essentially  altruistic,  the  effort  of  the  benefit  of 
some  person  beloved,  who  is  designated  as  the  "beneficiary." 
For  the  benefit  of  this  surviving  person  the  efforts  involved  in  the 
payment  of  premiums  are  put  forth,  and  the  insurance  com- 
panies and  their  underwriters  constitute  the  machinery  by  which 
this  unification  is  given  to  society. 

To  all  the  interests  of  insurance  the  lawlessness  of  war  is 
wholly  adverse  and  destructive.  Insurance  involves  mutual  trust, 
and    trust    thrives    under    security    of    person    and    property. 

54 


Insurance  demands  steadiness  of  purpose  and  continuity  of  law. 
In  war  all  laws  are  silent.  War  is  the  brutish,  blind  denial  of 
law,  only  admissable  when  all  other  honorable  alternatives  have 
been  withdrawn — the  last  resort  of  "murdered,  mangled  liberty." 

In  its  direct  relation  war  destroys  those  who,  to  the  under- 
writer, represent  the  "best  risks,"  the  men  most  valuable  to  them- 
selves, and  thus  most  valuable  to  the  community.  Those  whom 
war  leaves  behind,  to  slip  along  the  lines  of  least  resistance  into 
the  city  slums,  are  the  people  insurance  rarely  reaches.  War  con- 
fuses the  administration  of  insurance.  PoHcies  in  war  time  can  be 
written  only  on  a  sliding  scale.  This  greatly  increases  the 
premium  by  reducing  the  final  payments.  Increase  of  rate  of 
premium  must  decrease  business.  War  means  financial  anarchy, 
inflated  currency  and  depreciation  of  bonds.  A  currency  which 
fluctuates  demoralizes  all  business,  and  war  leaves  no  alternative. 
The  slogan,  "business  as  usual,"  in  war  time  deceives  nobody.  If 
it  did  nobody  would  gain  by  the  deception.  Enforced  loans  from 
the  reserve  fund  of  insurance  companies  to  the  state  mean  the 
depreciation  of  reserves;  in  the  form  of  unstable  bonds  means 
robbery  of  the  bondholders.  The  yielding  to  the  state,  by  enforced 
"voluntary  action,"  of  reserves  of  savings  banks  and  insurance 
companies  represents  a  form  of  state  robbery.  This  is  now  in 
practice  on  the  continent  of  Europe.  Such  funds  are  probably 
never  actually  confiscated,  but  held  in  abeyance  until  the  close 
of  the  war.  This  is  another  form  of  the  ever-present  "military 
necessity,"  which  seizes  men's  property  with  little  more  compunc- 
tion than  it  shows  in  seizing  men's  bodies.  War  conditions  mean 
insecurity  of  investment.  In  war  all  bonds  are  liable  to  become 
"scraps  of  paper,"  and  no  fund  can  be  made  safe.  The  insurance 
investments  in  Europe  have  been  enormously  depleted  in  worth, 
a  reduction  in  market  value  estimated  at  50  per  cent. 

Experts  in  insurance  tell  me  that  in  war  time  certain  policies 
are  written  so  as  to  be  scaled  down  automatically  when  the  holder 
goes  under  the  colors.  Some  are  invalid  in  time  of  war,  and  some 
have  the  clause  of  free  travel  greatly  abridged.  A  few  are  written 
to  apply  to  all  conditions,  but  on  these  the  rates  of  premiums 
would  naturally  increase.  Companies  generally  refuse  to  pay 
under  conditions  not  nominated  in  the  bond,  and,  in  general,  all 
policies  are  automatically  reduced  to  level  of  war  policies  when 
war  begins. 

55 


I  am  told  that  some  .\jnerican  companies  issue  group  policies, 
as  for  any  or  all  of  a  thousand  men,  these  not  subject  to  physical 
examination.  The  war  claims  in  Great  Britain  have  been  very 
heavy  because  such  a  large  proportion  of  clerks,  artisans,  students, 
and  other  insurable  or  well-paid  men  have  been  first  to  volunteer. 
Some  insurance  companies  have  been  much  embarrassed  by  the 
general  enlistment  of  their  employees. 

In  fire  insurance  conditions  are  much  the  same.  All  con- 
tracts in  foreign  nations  are  held  in  abeyance  until  the  close  of 
war.  Such  companies  doing  business  in  America  are  now  mostly 
incorporated  as  American. 

In  every  regard  the  business  of  insurance  is  naturally  allied 
with  the  forces  that  make  for  peace.  War  brings  ruin  through 
increase  of  loans,  through  the  exhaustion  of  reserves  and  the 
precarious  nature  of  investment.  The  same  remark  applies  in 
some  degree  to  every  honorable  or  constructive  business.  If  any 
other  form  of  danger  threatened  a  great  industry,  its  leaders  would 
be  on  the  alert.  They  would  spare  no  money  and  leave  no  stone 
unturned  for  their  own  protection. 

Towards  war  business  has  always  shown  a  stupid  fatalism. 
War  has  been  thought  "inevitable,"  coming  of  itself  at  intervals, 
with  nobody  responsible. 

There  could  not  be  a  greater  error.  War  does  not  come  of 
itself,  nor  without  great  and  persistent  preparation.  A  few 
hundred  resolute  men  bent  on  war,  led  by  unscrupulous  leaders, 
brought  on  this  war.  The  military  group  of  one  nation  plays  into 
the  hands  of  like  groups  in  other  nations.  To  keep  up  war  agita- 
tion long  enough,  whether  the  cause  be  real  or  imaginary,  seems 
to  hypnotize  the  public  mind.  The  horrors  of  war  fascinate 
rather  than  repel,  and  thousands  of  men  in  this  land  of  peace  are 
ready  to  fight  in  Europe,  to  one  who  dreamed  of  such  a  line  of 
action  a  year  or  two  ago. 

"Eternal  vigilance  is  the  price  of  liberty."  The  interests 
involved  should  put  honest  business  on  its  guard.  The  insurance 
men  could  afford  to  maintain  a  thousand  skillful  observers,  men 
wise  in  business  as  well  as  in  international  law,  and  in  the  manners 
and  customs  of  the  people  of  the  world.  A  few  dozen  skillful 
police — military  detectives — men  like  W.  J.  Burns,  for  example, 
employed  in  the  interest  of  finance,  might  save  finance  a  billion 
dollars.     Such  men  should  watch  the  standing  incentives  to  war. 

56 


They  should  stand  guard  against  the  influences  that  work  toward 
conflict.  We  who  work  for  peace  should  be  noVonly  "firemen,  to 
be  called  in  to  put  out  the  fire,"  already  started  through  negligence 
of  business  men,  but  agents  for  "fireproof  building  material"  in 
our  national  edifice,  to  stand  at  all  times  for  the  security  of  busi- 
ness, the  sanctity  of  law,  order  and  peace.  This  kind  of  "pre- 
paredness for  war"  would  involve  no  risks  of  conflict,  of  victory 
or  defeat. 


57 


A  League  to  Enforce  Peace 

Hon.  Francis  B.  Loomis 

I  HAVE  been  asked  to  say  something  about  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  and  to  present,  so  far  as  possible,  the  views 
of  some  of  those  who  were  instrumental  in  forming  it. 
Personally,  the  proposed  league  appears  to  me  to  be  an  experiment 
in  the  earliest  stages  of  development.  I  do  not  think  much  more 
can  be  claimed  for  it.  I  am  sure  that  there  will  have  to  be  some 
considerable  modifications  in  that  part  of  its  plan  which  proposes 
forthwith  to  declare  war  against  the  alleged  law  breaker.  I  think 
that  all  methods  of  coercion  other  than  force  will  have  to  be  very 
earnestly  sought  and  applied  before  a  declaration  of  war  would  be 
thinkable.  I  do  not,  of  course,  believe  that  an  effort  to  form  such  a 
league  should  be  made  until  peace  has  been  re-established.  Nor 
do  I  think  that  consideration  of  the  proposed  League  to  Enforce 
Peace  should  be  allowed  to  divert  attention  from  the  very  pressing 
present  necessity  of  preparing  this  nation  for  the  eventuality  of 
war.  So,  then,  I  shall  discuss  this  subject  in  the  light  of  an 
interesting  and  novel  experiment  or  suggestion.  With  proper 
modification  there  seems  to  be  much  in  it  that  is  worthy  of 
serious  consideration,  and  I  am  sure  the  proposed  plan  to  enforce 
peace  will  be  much  improved  and  strengthened  by  passing  through 
the  ordeal  of  a  general  public  discussion. 

The  League  to  Enforce  Peace  represents  the  latest  and, 
perhaps,  the  most  carefully  considered  endeavor  to  lay  the  founda- 
tions at  the  close  of  the  present  European  War,  for  a  better 
state  of  things  in  the  world.  It  is  formed  by  men  many  of  whom 
have  had  practical  experience  in  dealing  officially  with  foreign 
affairs  and  who  are  not  without  a  keen  working  knowledge  of 
the  international  mind.  As  an  ultimate  achievement,  they  look 
to  a  federation  of  the  great  powers  of  the  world  for  the  purpose 
of  maintaining  peace  and  settling  all  justiciable  questions  by 
means  of  an  international  court  which  shall  have  the  support 
of  the  important  governments  and  which  shall  be  backed  by  the 
moral  sentiment  of  mankind.  The  League  to  Enforce  Peace 
represents  something  more  solid  and  practical  than  a  mere  expres- 

58 


sion  of  sentiment  concerning  the  desirability  of  peace  and  the 
wastefulness  and  woe  of  war.  The  men  who  conceived  and  or- 
ganized this  League,  after  months  of  earnest  communing  and 
striving,  brought  forth  a  plan  not  to  put  an  end  to  war  but 
to  diminish  the  possibilities  of  war  and  to  reduce  the  number  of 
wars.  It  is  not  a  perfect  plan  and  it  will  be  subject  to  processes 
of  amendment,  amplification  and  growth.  It  is  a  plan  which, 
by  reason  of  its  simplicity  and  singleness  of  purpose,  appears  to 
be  worthy  of  earnest  consideration  and  careful  trial. 

The  new  feature  in  the  history  of  irenic  movements  is  a  provi- 
sion that  the  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use  forthwith  both 
their  economic  and  military  force  against  any  one  of  their  num- 
ber who  goes  to  war  or  commits  acts  of  hostility  against  another 
of  the  signatories  before  any  question  arising  shall  have  been 
submitted  to  a  council  of  conciliation  for  hearing,  consideration 
and  recommendation.  In  other  words,  when  an  alliance  or  league 
to  enforce  peace  is  formed  among  the  principal  nations  of  the 
earth,  no  member  of  this  confederation  may  wage  war  upon 
another  without  having  submitted  his  grievance  to  a  regularly 
constituted  board  of  conciliation  which  presumably  will  hold  the 
matter  under  consideration  for  a  year.  If  this  rule  is  violated, 
if  acts  of  hostility  are  engaged  in  without  the  submission  of  the 
questions  at  issue  to  a  properly  constituted  council  of  conciliation, 
then  the  other  members  of  the  league  are  bound  to  employ  their 
economic  and  military  strength  against  the  offending  member. 

The  purpose  of  this  League  to  Enforce  Peace  is  not  offensive. 
It  is  a  league  of  protection — mutual  protection  against  not  an 
outside  foe,  but  against  members  of  the  league  itself.  The  sig- 
natory powers  will  enter  into  an  agreement  to  do  certain  things ; 
the  fundamental  purpose  of  their  organization  being  to  establish 
and  maintain  peace.  It  is  obvious  that  the  members  of  the  league, 
like  the  states  of  this  Union,  will  have  to  provide  for  a  central, 
executive,  police  or  military  power.  There  will  have  to  be  at  least 
a  skeleton  and  military  organization.  This  will  be  a  difficult  prob- 
lem to  work  out  but  it  is  not  at  all  insoluble.  Providing  the  will 
to  succeed  exists,  and  if  the  nations  who  enter  the  League  to 
Enforce  Peace  highly  desire  to  maintain  peace,  they  will  be  able 
to  make  an  alliance  so  strong  and  effective  that  it  cannot  fail  of 
success  as  long  as  it  is  supported  by  public  opinion.  If  a  League 
to  Enforce  Peace  were  composed  of  the  United  States,  Germany, 

59 


Great  Britain,  France,  Russia,  Austria,  Italy  and  Japan,  it  is 
sufficiently  clear  that  not  a  single  government  among  those  named 
would  be  likely  to  attack  another  member  of  the  league.  The 
risk  would  be  too  great,  the  punisliment  too  certain  and  too  severe. 
Neither  one  nor  two  of  the  nations  in  such  a  league  could  hope 
to  stand  out  for  any  great  length  of  time  against  the  military 
and  economic  pressure  which  all  of  the  other  members  could  put 
upon  it.  The  offender  would  have  in  effect  the  whole  of  the 
civilized  world  banded  against  him,  because  the  smaller  nations 
would  inevitably  become  members  or  associates  of  the  league. 
They  could  not  do  otherwise. 

Leaving  aside  the  question  of  military  force,  the  economic 
influence  which  a  league  of  the  world  powers  of  the  world  could 
bring  to  bear  upon  an  offending  member  would  be  crushing  and 
would  be,  in  the  course  of  time,  as  effective  as  war.  The  power 
of  such  a  league  for  the  disciplining  of  such  unruly  countries  as 
Mexico,  Turkey  and  Haiti  would  be  unquestioned  and  final. 
It  seems  likely  that  once  an  international  alliance  is  formed  upon 
some  such  lines  as  those  indicated  by  the  League  to  Enforce 
Peace,  that  there  would  emerge  by  logical  evolution  a  highly 
developed,  strongly  centralized  world  government — a  government 
which  would  not  destroy  existing  nationalities,  which  would  not 
crush  and  which  would  not  smother  that  admirable  sentiment 
which  we  call  patriotism,  which  would  not  sterilize  salient  racial 
idiosyncracies  or  rob  peoples  of  their  individualities  and  na- 
tional aspirations,  of  their  national  ambitions  or  national  develop- 
ment upon  social,  intellectual  and  artistic  lines,  but  which  would 
result  in  each  government  surrendering  certain  of  its  attributes 
to  the  central  power  for  the  benefit  of  the  common  good.  The 
states  of  this  Union,  the  people  of  the  respective  commonwealths 
have  lost  nothing  that  makes  life  worth  living,  nothing  that  adds 
to  human  happiness,  nothing  that  makes  for  the  independence  of 
the  citizen  of  the  respective  states,  nothing  that  makes  for  liberty, 
for  the  rights  of  man,  by  delegating  certain  of  their  sovereign 
powers  to  the  national  federal  government  to  be  exercised  ex- 
clusively by  it. 

I  believe  that  the  main  good  resulting  from  the  present 
desperate  war  will  be  found  in  a  mellowing  and  chastening  in- 
fluence which  will  result  in  the  growth  of  a  spirit  of  greater  under- 
standing among  the  peoples  of  the  world,  greater  toleration,  and 

60 


the  spread  of  the  behef  that  fundamentally  humanity  is  the  same 
the  world  over,  that  it  has  the  same  hopes,  the  same  aspirations 
and  that  it  ought  to  be  entitled  to  the  same  social  organization, 
the  same  rights  of  expression,  the  same  protection  against  self- 
willed  nations  and  self-willed  individuals  who  seek  to  impose 
their  will  upon  it  arbitrarily. 


61 


The  Exposition  and  World  Peace 

Herbert  S.  Houston 

AT  this  western  gate,  facing  the  east,  the  World  is  taking  a 
measure  of  its  progress  in  the  arts  of  peace.  At  the 
western  gates  of  Europe  the  world  is  again  witnessing  the 
savagery  and  futility  of  war.  And  in  the  heavens  above  the  same 
sun  looks  down  on  both  scenes — a  contrast  that  really  represents 
an  irrepressible  conflict.  Here  by  the  Pacific  practically  all 
nations,  including  a  number  of  those  now  at  war,  join  in  display- 
ing the  evidences  of  their  civilization  as  a  League  of  Peace;  there, 
on  the  farther  side  of  the  Atlantic,  the  gage  of  battle  is  joined 
between  two  Leagues  of  War.  This  contrast  is  given  to  the 
world  in  such  compelling  fashion  that  it  can  never  forget  it,  the 
big  truth  that  both  war  and  peace  are  international.  No  nation, 
however  isolated,  can  any  longer  have  either  peace  or  war  unto 
itself  alone. 

Each  of  the  Leagues  abroad  is  composed  of  several 
nations,  for  not  one  nation  among  them  all  is  strong  enough 
to  withstand  the  shock  of  war  alone.  And  not  a  single  nation 
among  them  all,  at  least  among  the  great  powers  involved,  was 
strong  enough  to  maintain  a  separate  peace.  By  what  seems 
a  strange  paradox  the  weak  nation,  such  as  Holland  or  Den- 
mark or  Switzerland,  can  maintain  peace  while  the  strong  nation 
can  not ;  the  reason  is,  of  course,  that  the  strong  nation  is  looked 
upon  as  a  menace  by  other  strong  nations,  while  the  weak  nation 
is  not.  But  the  strong  nation,  however  powerful,  must  have 
allies.  It  can  neither  wage  war  nor  have  peace  alone,  for  both  war 
and  peace  in  this  great  modern  world  with  all  of  its  interrelations, 
are  now  and  forever  international. 

Here  in  America  at  last,  with  all  of  our  traditions  and 
policies  of  isolation  and  freedom  from  entangling  alliances,  we 
are  grasping  this  truth.  Even  the  Monroe  Doctrine,  which  we 
long  held  as  an  exclusive  possession,  we  are  willing  to  share 
with  other  nations  of  this  hemisphere.  Argentine,  Brazil  and 
Chili  have  been  acting  jointly  with  us  on  our  invitation,  in  seek- 
ing to  bring  calm  and  safety  to  distraught  Mexico.     Here  is  a 

62 


league  of  nations,  working  together  internationally  to  accomplish 
an  international  purpose  and  the  United  States  is  one  of  the 
group. 

But  far  beyond  an  indentification  with  this  league  composed 
of  nations  of  North  and  South  America  and  concerned  with 
the  well  being  of  another  nation  of  these  continents,  has  gone 
our  stout  advocacy  of  the  rights  of  all  nations  throughout  the 
world  on  the  sea,  that  mighty  highway  of  international  commerce. 
We  have  stood  for  international  law  in  war  and  in  peace. 
Through  the  unflinching  courage  of  our  great  President,  calm, 
serene,  inflexible,  the  American  position  has  been  maintained. 
Germany  has  accepted  it  and  there  is  every  reason  to  believe 
that  it  will  be  accepted  by  all  nations.  And  if  our  position  does 
prevail,  that  the  seas  are  the  common  highway  of  all  nations, 
to  be  used  by  them  without  let  or  hindrance  in  carrying  neutral 
•commerce,  even  in  times  of  war  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that 
a  great  sheet  anchor  will  have  been  forged  for  international  peace 
and  safety. 

The  plain  truth  is  that  in  this  modern  world,  washed  by  a 
common  ocean  and  swinging  in  its  orbit  under  a  common  sky,  no 
nation  can  live  unto  itself  alone.  All  are  enmeshed  in  an  infinite 
number  of  forces  and  counterforces  that  act  and  react.  The  world 
in  its  political  and  commercial  relations  is  truly  international. 
This  Exposition  is  a  crowning  demonstration.  Here  are  gathered 
the  myriad  evidences  of  man's  progress  drawn  from  all  nations. 
This  peace  conference  is  international,  just  as  the  Exposition  is. 
And  peace  itself,  that  great  goal  which  seems  ever  to  recede,  if 
finally  achieved  and  maintained,  must  be  by  international  forces. 

It  is  cheering  to  remind  you  that  a  distinguished  citizen  of 
California,  David  Lubin,  has  been  giving  a  fresh  proof  of  the 
saving  power  of  internationalism,  through  the  International  In- 
stitute of  Agriculture  which  he  organized  and  of  which  he  is 
the  head.  During  this  war  the  Institute  has  been  in  session,  I 
understand,  in  Rome  and  its  work  of  far-reaching  value  and 
helpfulness  has  gone  forward,  participated  in  by  the  accredited 
delegates  from  all  the  belligerent  nations. 

The  League  to  Enforce  Peace,  about  which  I  am  to  speak 
to  you  briefly,  stands  definitely  and  strongly  for  peace  through 
international  forces.  It  believes  that  law  should  take  the  place 
of  war  in  settling  differences  between  nations.    That  has  been 

63 


a  glorious  dream  of  men  through  generations,  Hugo  Gratius, 
William  Penn,  Emanuel  Kant,  Elihu  Burritt  and  of  hundreds  of 
others  in  many  countries.  In  1907,  at  the  second  Hague  Confer- 
ence, it  seemed  that  this  great  dream  was  to  come  true.  Forty- four 
nations  agreed  to  set  up  a  World  Court  of  arbitral  justice.  That 
proposal,  marking  the  farthest  point  yet  reached  up  the  hill  of 
international  progress,  still  stands.  But  high  as  it  is,  at  least 
in  its  recognition  of  the  principle  that  law  should  be  substituted 
for  war,  that  proposal  is  still  below  the  mark  that  the  world 
should  strive  for.  It  is,  after  all,  a  declaration  of  high  intention 
rather  than  a  program  of  effective  action.  For  the  proposal,  while 
it  provides  a  plan  for  an  International  Court,  neither  commits 
nations  to  use  it  through  treaty  agreement  nor  does  it  force 
them  to  use  it  through  compulsion  applied  by  other  nations.  In 
this  connection  it  may  tend  to  clarifying  my  theme  to  state 
briefly  the  four  proposals  that  have  been  widely  discussed  in 
reference  to  an  international  or  world  court. 

First,  there  is  this  Hague  proposal  of  1907  for  a  Court  of 
Arbitral  Justice — judicial  machinery  without  provision  to  have 
it  used. 

Second,  the  proposal  that  nations  should  bind  themselves  to 
use  such  a  court  in  settling  their  differences — an  agreement, 
without  provision  to  enforce  it. 

Third,  the  proposal  that  nations  should  bind  themselves 
jointly  to  use  force  against  any  signatory  nation  that  refused  to 
take  its  difference  with  another  nation  to  the  Court  before  going 
to  war — a  definite  plan  to  put  international  force  behind  a  Court, 
compelling  its  use. 

Fourth,  a  proposal  that  nations  should  not  only  establish 
the  court  and  require  it  to  be  used  but  should  put  behind  its 
decrees  their  combined  power — this  of  course,  is  a  proposal  to 
make  the  judgments  of  the  World  Court  as  mandatory  interna- 
tionally as  are  those  of  a  National  Court,  within  the  boundaries 
of  a  nation. 

Now  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  stands  squarely  for  the 
first  three  of  these  four  proposals.  At  a  conference  in  Independ- 
ence Hall  on  Bunker  Hill  day,  attended  by  over  three  hundred 
representative  men  from  every  part  of  the  country,  the  League 
was  organized  and  a  declaration  of  principles  was  made  to  the 
nations.    In  the  historic  hall  where  men  from  the  thirteen  colonies 

64 


united  in  grounding  their  faith  in  the  broad  principle  of  democ- 
racy, on  last  Bunker  Hill  day  men  from  all  over  the  nation  that 
had  grown  from  those  thirteen  colonies,  joined  in  grounding 
their  faith  in  the  principle  that  law  should  replace  war  and  they 
submitted  to  this  country  and  all  other  nations  these  simple, 
strong  proposals : 

First:  All  justiciable  questions  arising  between  the  signatory  powers, 
not  settled  by  negotiation,  shall,  subject  to  the  limitations  of  treaties, 
be  submitted  to  a  judicial  tribunal  for  hearing  and  judgment,  both  upon 
the  merits  and  upon  any  issue  as  to  its  jurisdiction  of  the  question. 

Second:  All  other  questions  arising  between  the  signatories  and  not 
settled  by  negotiation,  shall  be  submitted  to  a  council  of  conciliation 
for   hearing,    consideration    and    recommendation. 

Third:  The  signatory  powers  shall  jointly  use  forthwith  both  their 
economic  and  military  forces  against  any  one  of  their  number  that  goes 
to  war,  or  commits  acts  of  hostility  against  another  of  the  signatories 
before  any  question  arising  shall  be  submitted  as  provided  in  the  fore- 
going. 

Fourth :  Conferences  between  the  signatory  powers  shall  be  held 
from  time  to  time  to  formulate  and  codify  rules  of  international  law, 
which,  unless  some  signatory  shall  signify  its  dissent  within  a  stated 
period,  shall  thereafter  govern  in  the  decisions  of  the  Judicial  Tribunal 
mentioned   in   Article  I. 

The  distinguishing  thing  in  these  proposals,  of  course,  and 
the  thing  which  definitely  separates  them  from  the  proposals  of 
other  peace  organizations  is  the  placing  of  force  behind  a  World 
Court,  compelling  it  to  be  used.  And  why  not  ?  Surely  the  world, 
after  the  devastation  and  destruction  of  the  present  war,  will 
come  to  the  place  where  peace  will  seem  so  much  to  be  desired 
that  it  is  even  worth  fighting  for.  Many  will  say,  this  is  war  itself, 
the  very  thing  we  seek  to  prevent.  But  let  it  be  stated  in  rejoinder 
with  overwhelming  emphasis,  that  such  a  war,  if  it  should  be 
required  as  a  last  resort,  would  be  war  to  enforce  peace.  It 
would  be  war  to  establish  the  integrity  and  authority  of  world 
courts  that  the  nations  had  joined  in  setting  up  and  had  joined 
in  agreeing  to  use.  In  a  word  such  a  war  would  be  simply  the 
use  of  power  to  enforce  the  due  processes  of  international  law 
and  justice.  If  a  court  in  California,  set  up  by  the  people,  is 
flouted,  the  state,  through  its  constitutional  officers  and,  if  neces- 
sary, through  its  armed  forces,  asserts  the  sovereign  power  of  the 

65 


people  and  commands  and  compels  respect  for  the  court.  That  is 
not  war — it  is  the  State  maintaining  peace.  So  it  is  with  the  use 
of  armed  force  to  compel  a  recalcitrant  nation  to  take  its  inter- 
national differences  to  a  Court  instead  of  to  a  battlefield.  That 
would  not  be  war  but  the  exercise  of  military  power  to  enforce 
peace.  And  it  would  frequently  happen  that  the  use  of  the  great 
power  of  international  commerce,  applied  as  economic  pressure, 
would  be  sufficient  to  sober  a  nation  and  bring  it  to  the  World 
Court  without  resort  to  military  force.  There  are  many  men, 
both  inside  the  League  to  Enforce  Peace  and  outside  it,  who  hold 
strongly  to  this  view.  At  the  annual  convention  of  the  Chamber 
of  Commerce  of  the  United  States  last  January,  a  resolution  was 
introduced  urging  that  economic  pressure  be  used  as  a  penalty 
against  the  infraction  of  future  Hague  Conventions  and  also  as 
a  force  to  compel  a  judicial  settlement  of  international  differ- 
ences. At  the  Independence  Hall  Conference,  in  the  Committee 
on  Resolutions,  it  was  urged  that  economic  as  well  as  military 
power  be  placed  behind  the  proposed  Court  and  Council  of  Con- 
ciliation, and  this  was  done.  As  you  see  the  third  proposal  reads 
that  "both  economic  and  military  power  shall  be  forthwith  ex- 
ployed  against  an  offending  nation."  While  the  League  com- 
mits itself  to  the  use  of  these  powers  concurrently  it  is  interest- 
ing to  state  that  at  this  very  time  the  Chamber  of  Commerce 
of  the  United  States  is  taking  a  referendum,  among  its  hundreds 
of  constituent  bodies  with  their  membership  of  several  hundred 
thousand  of  the  most  important  business  men  in  America,  and 
this  referendum  seeks  an  expression  of  opinion  on  the  use,  first, 
of  economic  power  in  the  form  of  a  system  of  commercial  and 
financial  non-intercourse  to  be  followed  by  military  force  if 
necessary. 

Here  in  this  International  Exposition,  which  is  largely  the 
creation  of  international  commerce,  let  us  briefly  examine  com- 
merce as  economic  pressure.  Of  what  does  it  consist  and  how 
could  it  be  applied?  The  most  effective  factors  in  world-wide 
economic  pressure,  such  as  would  be  required  to  compel  nations 
to  take  justiciable  issues  to  a  World  Court  for  decision  and  to 
submit  to  its  decrees,  are  a  group  of  international  forces.  To-day 
money  is  international  because  in  all  civilized  countries  it  has 
gold  as  the  common  basis.  Credit  based  on  gold  is  international. 
Commerce  based  on  money  and  on  credit  is  international.   Then 

66 


the  amazing  network  of  agencies  by  which  money  and  credit  and 
commerce  are  employed  in  the  world  are  also  international. 
Take  the  stock  exchanges,  the  cables,  the  wireless,  the  interna- 
tional postal  service  and  the  wonderful  modern  facilities  for  com- 
munication and  intercommunication — all  these  are  international 
forces.  They  are  common  to  all  nations.  In  the  truest  sense  they 
are  independent  of  race,  of  language,  of  religion,  of  culture,  of 
government  and  of  every  other  human  limitation.  That  is  one 
of  their  chief  merits  in  making  them  the  most  effective  possible 
power  used  in  the  form  of  economic  pressure  to  put  behind  a 
World  Court. 

Business  to-day  is  really  the  great  organized  life  of  the 
world.  The  agencies  through  which  it  is  carried  forward  have 
created  such  a  maze  of  interrelations  that  each  nation  must  de- 
pend on  all  the  others.  A  great  Chicago  banker,  John  J.  Arnold, 
Vice-President  of  the  First  National  Bank  of  that  city,  said  to 
me  a  few  weeks  ago  that  so  closely  drawn  and  interwoven  had 
become  the  economic  net  in  which  the  world  was  enmeshed  that 
if  the  great  war  could  have  been  postponed  four  or  five  years 
it  would  never  have  swept  down  upon  men  like  a  thunderbolt  of 
destruction.  As  an  additional  strand  of  great  strength  in  the 
warp  and  woof  of  modem  progress,  Mr.  Arnold  believes  that  an 
International  Clearing  House  will  come — in  fact  that  it  is  an 
inevitable  development  in  international  finance.  It  was  my  privi- 
lege to  hear  him  make  a  notable  address  before  the  last  meeting 
of  the  American  Investment  Bankers'  Association  in  Philadelphia 
in  which  he  proposed  such  a  Clearing  House  for  settling  balances 
between  nations,  just  as  our  modern  Clearing  Houses  now  settle 
balances  between  banks  in  cities  in  which  they  are  located.  Be- 
yond question  such  an  International  Clearing  House,  when  es- 
tablished, would  quickly  become  an  invaluable  auxiliary  to  a 
World  Court,  helping  to  give  it  stability  and  serving,  when 
occasion  arose,  as  a  mighty  agency  through  which  economic  pres- 
sure could  be  applied. 

And  I  believe  Mr.  Arnold  is  right  in  his  view  that  an  Inter- 
national Clearing  House  is  bound  to  come.  Business,  finance, 
and  commerce  are  now  so  truly  international  that  there  is  a 
manifest  need  of  it.  As  a  strong  proof  of  this,  let  me  remind 
you  that  when  this  war  broke,  forty  per  cent  of  the  securities 
of  the  world  were  held  internationally. 

67 


Now  economic  pressure  is  not  a  new  thing  in  the  world. 
It  has  been  used  before  by  one  nation  against  another  and  usually 
with  tremendous  effectiveness.  When  Philip  was  organizing  the 
great  armada,  the  merchants  of  London  persuaded  the  merchants 
of  Genoa  to  withhold  credit  and  moneys  from  the  Spanish  king. 
The  result  was  that  the  armada  was  delayed  for  over  a  year, 
and  then  the  English  were  prepared  to  meet  the  shock.  What 
could  be  done  three  centuries  ago  for  a  year  to  delay  a  power  so 
great  as  Spain  then  was  could  be  done  in  this  century  far  more 
effectively.  And  it  has  been  employed  in  this  century.  When  the 
German  Emperor  dispatched  the  gunboat  to  Agadir,  bringing 
on  the  acute  crisis  with  France,  I  happened  to  be  in  Paris.  On 
the  fourth  day  of  the  crisis  I  was  having  luncheon  at  the  Grand 
Hotel  with  a  young  French  banker  of  the  Credit  Lyonnais.  I 
remarked  on  the  fact  that  the  crisis  was  becoming  less  acute  and 
inquired  the  reason.  "We  are  withdrawing  our  French  invest- 
ments from  Germany,"  was  the  rejoinder  "and  that  economic 
pressure  is  relieving  the  situation."  As  we  all  know,  it  not  only 
relieved  the  situation  but  it  served  as  a  definite  means  to  prevent 
a  war  that  seemed  imminent.  Now  I  submit  that  a  force  which 
England  could  use  against  Spain  in  the  sixteenth  century  and 
that  France  could  use  against  Germany  in  the  twentieth  century 
— in  each  case  let  me  remind  you  a  single  nation  was  applying 
force  against  another  single  nation  and  that  nation  its  enemy — 
I  submit  that  that  force  can  be  applied  by  all  nations  collectively 
against  another  nation  that  refuses  to  take  a  justiciable  issue  to 
a  World  Court  for  a  decision. 

A  nation  that  should  decline  to  take  justiciable  questions  to 
the  World  Court,  after  having  agreed  with  other  nations  to  do 
so,  would  manifestly  become  an  outlaw.  Why  shouldn't  other 
nations  immediately  declare  an  embargo  of  non-intercourse  with 
an  outlaw  nation,  refusing  to  buy  from  that  nation  or  to  sell 
to  that  nation  or  have  any  intercourse  w'hatsoever  with  that 
nation  ? 

One  of  the  great  advantages  of  economic  pressure  is  that 
it  can  be  applied  from  within  rather  than  from  without.  Eco- 
nomic pressure  touches  the  war  chest  of  every  country.  Instead 
of  fighting  with  bullets  we  can  fight  with  the  money  and  credit 
that  must  be  behind  bullets.  And  the  world  can  fight  in  that 
way  to  protect  the  civilization  that  has  been  slowly  and  painfully 

68 


built  up  through  the  centuries  if  it  will  use  the  force  of  commerce 
that  stands  ready  to  its  hand.  Nations  can  declare  an  economic 
embargo  against  an  offending  nation.  Or  it  is  more  accurate  to 
say  the  offending  nation  raises  an  economic  embargo  itself  by 
its  own  act  in  breaking  its  pledge  to  other  nations  and  placing 
itself  outside  the  pale  of  civilization  by  becoming  an  outlaw. 

Of  course,  the  one  apparently  strong  and  valid  argument  to 
be  brought  against  economic  pressure  is  that  it  would  bring  great 
loss  to  the  commerce  of  the  nations  applying  it.  But  that  loss 
would  be  far  less  than  the  loss  brought  by  war.  And  there  would 
be  no  loss  whatever  if  war  were  avoided. 

If  a  balance  could  be  rightly  struck  in  this  country,  is  there 
any  one  who  believes  that  our  interests  would  be  best  served 
by  war  in  some  other  country?  This  is  quite  apart  from  any 
question  of  humanity  or  civilization.  Let  it  be  a  trial  balance 
of  commerce  alone  and  it  will  show  a  heavy  debit  against  war. 
And  an  accounting  will  show  the  same  result  in  all  other  coun- 
tries. If  this  be  true,  with  only  current  commerce  entering  into 
the  equation,  how  staggeringly  true  it  becomes  when  the  piled 
up  debts  caused  by  war  are  considered.  Economists  who  have 
examined  the  matter  state  that  this  war  has  already  cost  over 
forty  billions  of  dollars.    And  the  end  is  not  yet. 

So  why  shouldn't  business,  which  has  been  binding  the  world 
more  closely  together  for  centuries,  be  employed  to  protect  the 
world  against  the  waste  and  loss  of  war?  Penalties  that  every 
nation  would  be  bound  to  respect  could  be  enforced  through 
economic  pressure.  The  loss  in  trade  would  be  small  or  great 
in  proportion  to  the  amount  and  duration  of  the  pressure;  but 
it  would  be  at  most  only  an  infinitesimal  fraction  of  the  loss 
caused  by  war. 

But  if  the  power  of  commerce  did  not  avail  to  bring  a  sig- 
natory nation  to  Court,  by  all  means  let  military  power  be  applied 
to  enforce  the  agreed  on  processes  of  international  law.  In 
a  civilized  world,  just  as  in  the  physical  and  spiritual  world,  law 
must  be  supreme.  To  enforce  law,  even  war  is  justified.  The 
League  to  Enforce  Peace  stands  for  the  use  of  both  economic  and 
military  power  against  a  nation  that  goes  to  war  before  sub- 
mitting any  question  arising  to  the  International  Court.  If  the 
question  is  submitted  and  decision  rendered,  the  nation  can  go 
to  war  if  it  is  so  disposed,  but  the  League  believes  that  it  will 


69 


not  be  so  disposed.  Instead,  in  the  time  required  for  submitting 
the  question  to  the  Court  and  getting  a  decision  a  nation  will,  as 
a  rule,  have  its  war  fever  cooled  and  its  calmness  restored,  with 
the  result  that  the  Court's  degree  will  be  accepted.  James  Brown 
Scott,  a  student  and  authority  on  international  law,  says  that 
there  is  not  a  case  on  record  of  a  nation  refusing  to  abide  by 
an  arbitration  decision,  in  all  the  hundreds  of  arbitrations  that 
have  been  held  in  the  last  century.  So  if  nations  can  be  brought 
before  an  international  tribunal  the  record  shows  that  decrees 
will  be  obeyed  and  wars  avoided. 

Here  in  this  International  Exposition  are  gathered  the  evi- 
dences of  man's  conquests,  the  trophies  in  his  long  hunt  for  power 
and  knowledge  and  light.  Along  with  them,  alas,  he  has  brought 
that  primal  instinct  to  fight.  In  the  family,  the  clan,  the  nation, 
this  instinct  has  survived  in  a  racial  consciousness.  That  appears 
to  be  merging  at  last  into  a  feeling  of  internationalism.  And 
in  what  a  great,  true  way  the  Exposition  interprets  that  feeling! 
Here  we  see  and  are  made  keenly  to  understand  that  art  is  inter- 
national ;  commerce  is  international ;  knowledge  is  international ; 
religion  is  international — that  all  the  sweep  and  range  of 
our  lives  are  caught  up  in  the  big  internationalism  of  a  com- 
mon humanity.  And  it  is  that  common  humanity  that  has  cre- 
ated and  developed  these  international  forces.  Isn't  it,  therefore, 
eternally  right  that  these  forces  should  protect  common  humanity 
by  maintaining  peace  on  the  broad  plane  of  justice?  Surely  it 
ought  never  again  to  be  necessary,  in  all  the  tides  of  time,  for 
a  whole  generation  of  men  to  lose  their  lives  because  the  world 
is  benighted.  Let  us  help  spread  the  truth  that  world  peace  can 
become  a  world  fact  when  men  undertake  to  establish  and  main- 
tain it  through  the  international  forces  they  themselves  have 
created. 


70 


Landlordism  the  Cause  of  War 
Walter  MacArthur 

IT  is  of  interest  to  recall  that  four  or  five  years  have  elapsed 
since  a  committee  of  citizens  first  met  in  this  city  to  arrange 

the  preliminaries  of  this  International  Peace  Congress.  The 
world  was  then  at  peace,  such  peace  as  it  had  been  permitted  to 
enjoy. 

In  the  minds  of  thoughtful  men  and  women  everywhere 
the  menace  of  war  was  even  then  present.  The  generally  pre- 
vailing condition  of  times  was  that  of  armed  peace,  a  condition 
in  itself  hardly  less  intolerable  than  that  of  war,  a  condition  that 
constantly  threatened  the  utter  breakdown  of  our  civilization. 

The  approaching  Panama  Pacific  International  Exposition 
was  deemed  an  appropriate  occasion  upon  which  to  give  con- 
certed voice  to  those  principles  and  policies  upon  which  alone 
peace  can  be  established  and  maintained  among  the  nations  of  the 
earth. 

Much  has  happened  since  the  first  meeting  of  the  committee 
of  arrangements  for  this  Congress.  No  one  knew  then  as  much 
as  he  knows  now.  Certainly  no  one  knew  then  that  long  before 
the  Congress  should  have  met  the  world  would  be  engulfed  in 
the  most  hideous  war  of  all  time. 

Probably  had  we  foreseen  the  events  of  the  present  many 
things  would  have  been  arranged  differently.  It  is  more  than 
likely  that  the  plans  of  the  great  Exposition  itself  would  have 
been  postponed,  if  not  abandoned.  One  thing,  however,  may  be 
confidently  assumed.  Had  the  men  and  women  who  were  re- 
sponsibe  for  the  arrangements  of  this  Congress  known  that  they 
stood  upon  the  brink  of  a  great  war,  they  would  not  have  post- 
poned this  assemblage  nor  abated  their  enthusiasm  in  the  cause 
of  peace.  Rather  they  would  have  hastened  the  plans,  and  with 
even  greater  enthusiasm,  if  that  were  possible. 

Never  has  there  been  greater  need  of  the  counsels  of  peace 
than  at  the  present  moment.  Never  have  the  horrors  of  war  been 
more  apparent  than  at  the  present  moment.  Never  has  the  oppor- 
tunity to  marshal  the  forces  of  right  and  reason  against  those 
of  wrong  and  madness  been  as  great  or  as  potent  for  the  re- 

71 


demption  of  mankind  as  that  now  presented  to  this  and  other 
gatherings  of  the  kind  throughout  the  world. 

Never  has  the  inspiration  in  the  cause  of  real  civilization, 
of  true  and  lasting  peace,  of  human  progress  based  upon  eternal 
justice,  been  as  strong  as  that  which  we  gather  from  the  havoc 
and  hell  of  the  conflict  now  raging  around  us. 

Nobody  wants  war.  Everybody  hates  war.  War  is  uni- 
versally  condemned   as   an   unmitigated   calamity. 

When  war  "breaks  out"  each  belligerent  disclaims  respon- 
sibility for  the  rupture,  and  offers  the  plea  of  self  defense. 
Everybody  deplores  the  result  as  stupid,  barbaric,  brutal. 

Each  belligerent  explains  the  cause  of  the  war  to  his  own 
satisfaction.  But  neither  belligerent  offers  an  explanation  that 
can  by  any  possibility  be  accepted  by  "the  enemy." 

The  difficulty  of  reaching  an  agreement  upon  the  cause  of  the 
war  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  explanations  offered  by  the  respective 
belligerents  are  largely  true,  but  wholly  superficial. 

In  one  quarter  the  war  is  explained  upon  the  ground  of  the 
"menace  of  militarism."  In  another  quarter  the  explanation  of 
"trade  jealousy"  is  put  forward.  The  apparent  irreconciliability 
of  these  explanations  arises  from  the  fact  that  they  overlook  the 
fundamental  cause  of  all  war,  the  one  cause  to  which  miHtarism, 
trade  jealousy,  and  all  other  superficial  or  immediate  causes  of 
war  are  referable. 

Everybody  wishes  the  war  were  ended,  but  nobody  is  able 
to  end  it.  The  end  of  war  in  every  case  comes  as  a  result  of 
exhaustion  on  either  or  both  sides.  The  net  result  is,  not  the 
settlement  of  old  problems,  but  the  creation  of  new  problems, 
problems  that  grow  out  of  the  hatreds,  fears  and  jealousies  en- 
gendered by  war  itself. 

It  would  appear  from  this  glance  at  the  "facts  in  the  case" 
that  war  is  a  thing  beyond  human  control,  a  "visitation,"  a 
plague  that  must  "run  its  course"  in  accordance  with  some  in- 
scrutable law  of  nature. 

If  in  our  understanding  of  the  laws  of  nature  we  recognize 
only  the  physical  forces  that  surround  us,  we  must  reject  the 
theory  of  "natural  law"  as  the  cause  of  war,  notwithstanding  the 
facts,  as  they  appear  on  the  surface,  bear  very  strongly  in  favor 
of  that  theory. 

72 


War  is,  after  all,  a  product  of  man's  hand,  and  also,  in  a 
sense,  of  his  brain.  There  is  an  element,  if  not  of  initiative,  at 
least  of  volition  in  the  convulsion  of  war  that  distinguishes  it 
from  the  ordinary  manifestations  of  nature's  forces. 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  in  our  conception  of  natural  law  we 
admit  the  existence  of  a  force  operating  on  the  human  mind  and 
body,  as  an  edict,  let  us  say,  determining  man's  relation  to  the  ex- 
ternal world,  we  may  also  admit  that  war  is  a  product  of  natural 
law — that  is  to  say,  a  result  of  the  violation  of  natural  law. 

We  may  therefore  accept  the  verdict,  based  upon  the  facts 
that  war  is  a  product  of  nature.  But  we  need  not,  as  a  conse- 
quence, accept  the  conclusion  that  war  is  inevitable  and  inescap-^ 
able.  On  the  contrary,  we  recognize  in  that  verdict  a  duty  to 
determine  the  law  in  the  case,  to  determine  wherein  we  have 
offended  against  the  law  of  our  existence. 

We  recognize  this  duty  the  more  gladly  as  we  contemplate 
the  workings  of  law  in  other  spheres  and  note  the  harmonious 
action  of  the  world's  material  and  moral  forces — the  co-operation 
between  man  and  nature,  the  reach  of  man's  intellect  into  the 
highest  realms  of  science — and  observe  the  result  in  every  de- 
velopment of  civilization. 

How,  then,  shall  we  determine  that  law  of  nature  the  viola- 
tion of  which  produces  war,  despite  every  desire  to  preserve 
peace  ? 

This  law  must  be  determined,  or  we  must  acknowledge  our 
impotence  in  the  presence  of  nature.  Merely  to  wish  for  peace 
is  childlishness.     Merely  to  pray  for  peace  is  fetichism. 

Any  discussion  of  the  subject  that  does  not  at  least  honestly 
aim  at  the  real  cause  of  war,  merely  mocks  at  sorrow,  if  it 
does  not  actually  compromise  with  guilt. 

The  relation  of  man  to  the  land  upon  which  he  lives  and 
from  which  alone  he  can  derive  the  means  of  subsistence,  affords 
at  least  an  hypothesis  from  which  w^e  may  draw  a  conclusion. 

Man's  relation  to  land  bears  two  aspects,  the  natural  and 
the  social.  In  respect  to  the  natural  aspect  of  this  relation,  we 
perceive  a  direct  and  inseparable  connection  between  man  and 
land,  the  element  upon  which  he  depends  for  existence  as  much 
as  upon  the  air  he  breathes.  In  respect  to  the  social  aspect,  we 
find  that  a  barrier  has  been  raised  between  the  man  and  the 

73 


land,   separating  man   from  his   sole  means   of  subsistence  as 
effectually,  in  a  sense,  as  though  he  were  driven  into  the  sea. 

Thus  ensues  a  conflict  between  the  two  phases  of  the  law 
governing  man's  relation  to  the  land.  In  a  word,  the  laws  of 
society  respecting  the  ownership  and  use  of  the  land  ignore  and 
contravene  the  laws  of  nature  respecting  the  necessities  of  man's 
existence. 

This  condition  produces  results  as  inevitable  as  they  are 
fatal  to  the  world's  peace.  In  the  circumstances  war  and  all  other 
forms  of  social  conflict  are  indeed  the  product  of  natural  law, 
precisely  as  an  explosion  caused  by  applying  a  light  to  powder  is  a 
product  of  natural  law. 

To  be  sure,  man  still  lives  on  the  land.  The  social  laws  to 
which  reference  is  here  made  do  not  literally  separate  man  from 
the  land.  That  were  a  literal,  a  natural,  impossibility.  The  land 
laws  afford  an  alternative  of  physical  separation  from  the  only 
means  of  subsistence,  namely,  occupation  upon  terms  dictated 
by  the  landlord. 

The  terms— that  is,  the  rent— are  by  the  nature  of  things 
fixed  at  a  point  which  enables  the  occupier  and  user — the  tenant — 
to  retain  so  much  of  the  produce  of  the  soil  as  may  be  necessary 
for  his  own  existence.  The  remainder  of  the  value  produced  by 
the  tenant  is  appropriated  by  the  landowner. 

This,  we  believe,  is  a  fair,  but  of  course,  a  very  general 
presentation  of  the  alternative  afforded  by  the  prevailing  system 
of  land  tenure.  This  alternative  is  accepted  as  a  matter  of 
necessity.  The  man  who  must  use  the  land  can  do  neither  more 
nor  less  than  accept  the  alternative  presented  to  him  by  the  man 
who  owns  the  land. 

In  appearance  the  tenant's  course  is  a  matter  of  free  choice, 
a  matter  of  take  it  or  leave  it.  In  reality  the  tenant  has  no 
choice  at  all.  The  necessities  of  his  case— the  imperative  laws 
of  his  being — compel  him  to  accept  the  terms  dictated  to  him. 

The  relationship  of  landlord  and  tenant  is  an  anomally  in 
nature,  a  defiance  of  natural  law.  To  comprehend  the  real  signifi- 
cance of  landlordism  we  must  look  far  beyond  the  sphere  already 
occupied  by  landlord  and  tenant. 

The  evils  which  we  observe  in  that  field  are  but  the  reflex 
of  a  greater  evil — ^namely,  the  holding  of  land  out  of  use.  Con- 
gestion of  population,  with  its  interminable  train  of  public  and 

74 


private  ills,  under-production,  with  the  consequent  increase  in 
the  cost  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  and  many  other  "problems," 
occur  naturally  and  inevitably  from  the  fact  that  much  of  the 
land,  and  that  of  the  most  fertile  quality,  is  held  permanently  out 
of  use. 

The  evidence  of  this  condition  is  so  overwhelming  that  it 
may  seem  superfluous  to  cite  particular  instances.  One  case  in 
point  strikes  me  as  so  closely  identified  with  the  cause  of  the 
present  war,  and  at  the  same  time  affords  so  striking  a  com- 
mentary upon  the  anomaly  of  the  situation  that  I  can  not  forbear 
to  present  it  here. 

The  American  consul  at  Bradford,  England,  reporting  upon 
the  prospects  for  the  shooting  season  of  the  present  year,  says : 

"The  12th  of  August  is  the  opening  day  for  the  grouse-shooting 
season,  but  this  year  there  has  not  been  the  usual  rush  to  the  Yorkshire 
moors  and  to  Scotland.  Many  of  the  large  shootings,  especially  in  Scot- 
land, have  not  been  let,  and  even  where  proprietors  have  been  successful 
in  securing  tenants  they  have  had  to  accept  considerably  lower   rents. 

"In  order  to  prevent  overstocking  of  the  moors,  which  is  apt  to 
result  in  damage  being  done  to  crops  by  the  game  and  also  in  the  spread 
of  disease  among  the  birds,  the  House  of  Lords  introduced  a  bill  to 
open  the  season  earlier  than  the  established  date,  but  it  did  not  become 
law.  Lord  Lovatt,  speaking  in  the  House  of  Lords,  said  that  the 
total  grouse  rents  of  Great  Britain  amount  to  nearly  a  million  pounds 
sterling  ($4,866,500)  per  annum,  and  'over  and  above  that  the  amount 
spent  by  strangers,  who  are  often  foreigners,  is  probably  an  equivalent 
sum.  The  rental  per  acre  of  grouse  moors  is  often  ten  times  as  much 
as  the  rental  per  acre  for  grazing.' 

"It  is  said  that  in  an  average  year  about  2,000,000  grouse  are  killed, 
and  at  a  time  like  this  when  prices  of  meat  have  risen  so  considerably, 
it  would  be  wrong  to  allow  such  a  supply  of  food  to  be  wasted.  More- 
over, in  many  instances,  wise  and  charitable  arrangements  for  the 
disposal  of  the  birds  have  been  made;  the  King,  for  example,  having 
given  orders  that  all  game  killed  on  his  own  moors,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  that  required  by  the  Royal  household,  shall  be  distributed  among 
the  naval  and  military  hospitals." 

We  may  easily  imagine  the  reflections  of  the  recipients  of  the 
Royal  bounty.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that  they  will  be  comforted  by 
the  knowledge  that,  although  the  moors  are  ordinarily  held  out 
of  use  for  all  practical  purposes,  on  the  present  occasion  they 
are  privileged  to  enjoy  at  least  a  part  of  the  product  of  "the 
shootings." 

75 


On  the  other  hand,  it  may  be  that  the  comfort  thus  derived 
is  tempered  by  recognition  of  the  fact  that  but  for  the  system 
under  which  a  "shooting  ground"  is  held  at  a  value  to  its  owners 
ten  times  greater  than  that  of  the  same  ground  if  devoted  to 
common  uses,  the  war  itself  would  be  unnecessary,  if  not  im- 
possible. 

Another  proof  of  the  inseparable  connection  between  the  war 
and  the  land  question  is  found  in  the  proposals  recently  put 
forward  by  certain  German  college  professors  as  their  concep- 
tion of  the  terms  upon  which  peace  ought  to  be  made.  Dealing 
with  conditions  on  the  Eastern  frontier,  the  memorial  referred 
to  says: 

"A  boundary-wall  and  a  guaranty  for  the  increase  of  our  population, 
however,  are  afforded  by  land  which  Russia  must  cede.  It  must  be 
land  suitable  for  agricultural  settlement,  land  which  will  give  us  vigor- 
ous peasants,  a  perpetual  source  of  renewed  health  to  a  nation  and  a 
country;  land  which  can  receive  some  of  our  increased  population,  and 
offer  Germans,  who  have  returned  from  enemy  countries  and  wish  to 
turn  their  backs  upon  them,  a  new  home  in  the  old  one;  land  which 
will  avoid  a  fall  in  the  birth-rate,  check  emigration,  and  alleviate  the 
scarcity  of  dwelling  accommodation,  and  land  the  new  settlement  and 
Germanization  of  which  will  procure  the  working  classes  fresh  oppor- 
tunities for  development.  Such  land  for  our  physical,  moral,  and  in- 
tellectual well-being  is  the  first  and  foremost  to  be  found  in  the  east." 

It  would  be  difficult  to  improve  upon  this  statement  of  the 
college  professors  as  a  resume  of  the  land  question  in  its  relation 
to  the  needs  of  man  and  its  effect  upon  man's  comfort  and  prog- 
ress. It  is  to  be  regretted  that  men  and  scholars  who  have 
learned  the  truth  in  these  respects  should  apparently  be  ignorant 
of  the  equally  important,  and  it  would  seem  more  obvious  truth 
that  but  for  the  land  system  prevailing  within  the  German 
Empire  itself  there  would  be  no  need  of  acquiring  new  lands  in 
Russia  or  elsewhere.  Biut  perhaps  the  German  college  profes- 
sors are  wiser  than  they  appear  to  be  and  are  merely  assuming 
ignorance  for  reasons  best  known  to  themselves. 

Whether  the  land  be  held  for  a  "rise  in  value,"  for  the 
purpose  of  being  "shot  over,"  or  with  the  object  of  "preventing 
injurious  competition,"  the  effect  is  the  same  upon  the  masses 
of  men,  who  crowd  around  the  borders  of  the  soil,  appealing  for 
an  opportunity  to  apply  themselves  to  the  production  of  the 
means  of  subsistence. 

76 


Denied  access  to  the  land,  men  turn  upon  each  other.  BHndly 
and  dumbly  in  most  instances — sometimes  with  clear  vision  and 
unmistakable  articulation — at  all  times  driven  by  an  instinctive 
sense  of  injustice,  the  disinherited  children  of  the  soil  lay  hands 
upon  our  most  cherished  institutions,  convulsing  society  and 
threatening  with  destruction  the  entire  fabric  of  civilization. 

War  between  nations  is  the  thunderclap  of  forces  generated 
in  the  struggle  of  the  peoples  of  all  nations  to  regain  the  birth- 
right of  free  land. 

The  prevailing  opinion  among  men  attributes  war  to  certain 
more  or  less  clearly  defined  causes.  Among  these  are  the  jealousy 
between  nations,  rivalry  for  supremacy  in  trade,  quarrels  arising 
from  schemes  of  colonization,  the  spirit  of  militarism,  and  the 
maintenance  of  great  armaments. 

Probably  one  or  more  of  these  causes  may  be  found  in  every 
war.  However  apparent  such  causes  may  be,  further  inquiry 
will  show  that  each  is  in  itself  a  result  of  the  underlying,  fun- 
damental cause  here  outlined. 

War  "breaks  out"  between  two  militaristic  nations.  We  say 
that  the  war  is  the  logical  result  of  the  spirit  of  militarism.  Quite 
true.  But  militarism  itself  is  the  equally  logical  result  of  a  system 
of  government  under  which  military  force  alone  can  suffice  to 
keep  the  people  in  subjection  to  wrong. 

So  with  the  other  immediate  causes  of  war.  They  will  be 
found  to  be  merely  contributary  causes.  Militarism,  trade  rivalry, 
colonization,  and  other  causes  of  war  are,  in  their  present  forms, 
of  comparatively  recent  origin.  We  see  these  things  clearly  and 
their  characteristics  are  familiar  to  our  minds.  These  are  con- 
crete, external  matters,  the  effect  and  operation  of  which  we  feel 
and  look  upon  as  spectators,  not  as  participants. 

These  causes  of  war  appear  to  us  closely,  yet  in  fairly  true 
perspective.  We  pass  judgment  upon  these  things  more  or  less 
confidently  and  more  or  less  correctly.  Our  judgment  that  na- 
tions go  to  war  because  they  are  well  prepared  for  war  is  prob- 
ably correct;  so  is  our  judgment  that  men  shoot  each  other 
because  they  are  armed.  But  such  judgment  is  valueless  as  a 
means  of  preventing  a  repetition  of  the  occurrence. 

The  laws  of  land  tenure  are  old — as  old  as  civilization  itself- 
Private  land  ownership  exists  everj'where  among  civilized  nations, 
and  its  leading  characteristics  vary  little  in  different  localities. 


Moreover,  we  are  participants  in  the  institution  of  land  ownership, 
whether  as  beneficiaries  or  as  tenants  matters  Httle  for  the 
purpose  of  this  inquiry. 

We  observe  the  workings  of  that  institution,  we  note  its  im- 
mediate effects — the  congestion  of  population  and  other  pheno- 
mena of  the  times — and  we  give  ready,  or  it  may  be  reluctant, 
consent  to  this  or  that  scheme  of  "land  reform."  We  do  not, 
however,  recognize  in  the  institution  of  land  ownership,  as  it 
has  existed  from  time  immemorial,  the  prime  cause  of  all  war, 
the  parent  of  those  convulsions  that  have  shaken  society,  and 
sometimes  destroyed  the  state,  in  many  epochs  of  history. 

The  evils  of  landlordism  are  so  widely  disseminated,  so 
generally  prevalent,  that  they  are  quite  commonly  regarded  as  in 
the  nature,  or  at  least  the  second  nature  of  things.  Two  wrongs 
do  not  make  a  right.  But  wrong,  if  sufficiently  widespread,  may 
pass  for  right,  owing  solely  to  the  lack  of  ability  to  successfully 
challenge  it. 

The  victims  of  landlordism  are  so  numerous,  and  their  in- 
terests in  other  respects  are  so  varied,  that  it  has  heretofore  been 
impossible  to  unite  them  at  any  rallying  point.  Peoples  unite 
against  their  respective  governments,  nations  unite  against  each 
other,  issues  are  formulated  and  fought  out,  dynasties  go  down  in 
the  maelstrom  of  revolution.  But  the  great  issue  out  of  which 
all  social  tumult  grows  survives  every  storm. 

The  false  system  of  land  tenure  that  enables  a  few  men  to 
enslave  the  great  mass  of  their  fellows  passes  unscathed,  and 
it  may  be  unnoticed,  through  the  wreck  and  ruin  of  empires,  and 
derives  added  strength  from  the  exhaustion  of  the  peoples. 

The  cause  of  war  is  renewed  by  war  itself.  The  history  of 
war  repeats  itself  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  while  war  destroys  the 
products  of  man's  labor,  it  leaves  the  land  untouched  and  pro- 
portionately more  valuable  to  landlord  because  more  necessary 
to  the  tenant. 

Any  plan  for  the  abolition  of  war,  to  be  in  any  degree  effec- 
tive, must  include  a  method  of  dealing  with  the  land  question 
upon  equitable — that  is  to  say,  natural — grounds.  Any  plan  that 
excludes  this  consideration  is  certain  to  prove  futile. 

Peace  parliaments,  disarmament,  arbitration  treaties,  inter- 
national courts,  can  not  of  themselves  do  more  than  delay,  or  at 
best,  "regulate"  war.    Such  plans  do  not  recognize  the  true  cause 

78 


of  war.  On  the  contrary,  they  more  or  less  frankly  proceed 
upon  the  theory  that  war  is  a  condition  inherent  in  the  "nature 
of  things,"  a  condition  that  may  be  avoided  by  increasing  thej 
difficulties  and  formalities  attendant  upon  the  "opening  of  hostili- 
ties," but  which  can  not,  in  the  "nature  of  things,"  be  entirely 
removed  from  the  sphere  of  probability,  or  even  certainty. 

Such  plans,  so  far  from  lessening  the  probability  of  war, 
increase  it  by  multiplying  the  rules,  thus  in  effect  increasing  the 
sanctions,  under  which  war  is  conducted.  No  rule  or  sanction,  no 
matter  by  what  authority  it  may  be  laid  down,  can  make  war  less 
hateful  than  it  now  is,  less  unjustifiable,  or  less  likely  to  "break 
out." 

War  is  a  crime  against  humanity.  The  real  cause  of  war  is 
known.  Humanity  will  not  knowingly  compromise  with  that 
cause,  since  to  do  so  would  be  to  invite,  nay,  to  insure,  an  indefinite 
succession  of  wars. 

We  admit  that  war  is  a  manifestation  of  natural  law,  as  much 
so  as  a  thunderstorm  or  an  earthquake.  But  we  do  not  admit 
that  we  are  equally  powerless  in  the  face  of  these  phenomena. 
We  are  powerless  to  prevent  an  earthquake  for  the  same  reason 
that  we  are  powerless  to  produce  one — for  the  reason,  in  brief, 
that  we  have  no  part  in  the  phenomenon. 

But  war,  though  a  product  of  natural  law,  is  also  a  product 
of  human  law.  The  immediate  agency  of  production  in  the 
latter  case  is  entirely  human.  The  cause — that  is,  the  compulsion 
— of  war  consists  in  the  violation  of  natural  law  by  our  failure  to 
recognize  and  obey  the  mandate  of  nature 

We  admit  that  war  is  a  "plague."  Qui  hope  of  ending  war 
is  strengthened  by  our  knowledge  that  many  other  plagues,  each 
in  its  tim.e  growing  out  of  causes  as  "inscrutable"  as  those  of  war, 
have  been  abolished,  first  by  the  discovery  of  the  cause,  and 
secondly,  by  the  use  of  adequate  preventatives. 

We  recognize  the  cause  of  war  in  the  fact — the  indisputable 
fact — that  the  land  of  the  earth,  upon  which  all  men  must  depend 
for  their  very  lives,  is  owned  and  controlled  by  a  very  few  men. 
The  condition  of  practical,  and  in  fact  literal,  enslavement,  to 
which  the  great  majority  of  mankind  in  all  lands  is  thus  con- 
demned, produces  results  more  dangerous  to  society,  more 
pregnant  of  social  disturbance,  than  any  other,  or  all  other, 
"social  problems"  that  we  know  of. 

79 


Relatively  speaking,  there  is  less  land  in  the  world  to-day  than 
at  any  time  in  the  past.  That  is  to  say,  there  is  less  land  available 
for  the  use  of  the  people.  Contemporaneously  with  the  process 
of  contraction  of  land  has  gone  the  process  of  expansion  of 
human  knowledge,  of  human  desire  and  needs. 

The  system  that  hardly  sufficed  for  the  needs  of  men  in  the 
feudal  times  falls  far  short  of  the  needs  of  modern  times.  Yet 
the  land  system  of  to-day  is  essentially  that  of  the  feudal  period, 
with  one  important  exception. 

The  feudal  lord  held  the  land  upon  terms  of  definite  respon- 
sibility, both  to  the  state  and  to  his  tenants.  The  modern  landlord 
recognizes  no  responsibility,  either  to  state  or  tenant.  He  holds 
the  land  as  his  very  own,  and  confidently  asserts  the  "right  to  do 
as  he  pleases  with  his  own." 

In  our  own  land — here  in  the  United  States — the  land  ques- 
tion has  already  become,  if  not  actually,  at  least  potentially,  as 
acute  as  in  the  older  countries.  The  future  of  our  country,  as 
well  in  internal  as  in  external  afifairs,  will  be  determined  by  the 
manner  in  which  we  shall  deal  with  that  question. 

By  way  of  illustrating  the  situation  in  this  respect,  I  would 
refer  briefly  to  the  result  of  the  most  recent  investigation  of  the 
subject.  It  will  be  recalled  that  the  Commission  on  Industrial 
Relations,  created  by  act  of  Congress  August  23,  1912,  was 
empowered,  among  other  objects,  to  "seek  to  discover  the  under- 
lying causes  of  dissatisfaction  in  the  industrial  situation  and 
report  its  conclusions  thereon."  Among  the  matters  investigated 
by  the  Commission  was  that  of  "the  Land  Question  and  the 
Condition  of  Agricultural  Labor."  Upon  this  subject  the  Com- 
mission reported,  in  part,  as  follows : 

"Tenancy  in  the  Southwestern  States  is  already  the  prevailing  method 
of  cultivation  and  is  increasing  at  a  very  rapid  rate.  In  1880  Texas 
had  65,468  tenant  families,  comprising  Zl .6  per  cent  of  all  farms  in  the 
State.  In  1910,  tenant  farmers  had  increased  to  219,571,  and  operated 
^Z  per  cent  of  all  farms  in  the  State.  Reckoning  on  the  same  ratio  of 
increase  that  was  maintained  between  1900  and  1910,  there  should  be 
in  Texas  in  the  present  year  (1915),  at  least  236,000  tenant  farmers. 
A  more  intensive  study  of  the  field,  however,  shows  that  in  the  eighty- 
two  counties  of  the  State,  where  tenancy  is  highest,  the  average  per- 
centage of  tenants  will  approximate  sixty. 

"For  Oklahoma  we  have  not  adequate  census  figures  so  far  back, 
but  at  the  present  time  the  percentage  of  farm  tenancy  in  the  State  is 

80 


54.8,  and  for  the  47  counties  where  the  tenancy  is  highest  the  percentage 
of  tenancy  is  68.13. 

"Tenancy,  while  inferior  in  every  way  to  farm  ownership  from  a 
social  standpoint,  is  not  necessarily  an  evil  if  conducted  under  a  system 
which  protects  the  tenants  and  assures  cultivation  of  the  soil  under 
proper  and  economical  methods,  but  where  tenancy  exists  under  such 
conditions  as  are  prevalent  in  the  Southwest,  its  increase  can  be  re- 
garded  only   as   a  menace  to   the   Nation. 

"The  prevailing  system  of  tenancy  in  the  Southwest  is  share-ten- 
ancy, under  which  the  tenant  furnishes  his  own  seed,  tools  and  teams, 
and  pays  to  the  landlord  one-third  of  the  grain  and  one-fourth  of  the 
cotton.  There  is,  however,  a  constant  tendency  to  increase  the  land- 
lord's share,  through  the  payment  either  of  cash  bonuses  or  of  a  higher 
percentage  of  the  product.  Under  this  system,  tenants  as  a  class,  earn 
only  a  bare  living  through  the  work  of  themselves  and  their  entire 
families. 

"As  a  result  both  of  the  evils  inherent  in  the  tenant  system  and  of 
the  occasional  oppression  by  landlords,  a  state  of  acute  unrest  is  develop- 
ing among  the  tenants,  and  there  are  clear  indications  of  the  beginning 
of  organized  resistance  which  may  result  in  civil  disturbances  of  a  seri- 
ous character. 

"The  situation  is  being  accentuated  by  the  increasing  tendency  of 
the  landlords  to  move  to  the  towns  and  cities,  relieving  themselves  not 
only  from  all  productive  labor,  but  from  direct  responsibility  for  the 
conditions  which  develop.  Furthermore,  as  a  result  of  the  increasing 
expenses  incident  to  urban  life,  there  is  a  marked  tendency  to  demand 
from  the  tenant  a  greater  share  of  the  products  of  his  labor. 

"The  responsibility  for  the  existing  conditions  rests  not  upon  the 
landlords,  but  upon  the  system  itself.  The  principal  causes  are  to  be 
found  in  the  system  of  short  leases,  the  system  of  private  credit  at 
exorbitant  rates,  the  lack  of  a  proper  system  of  marketing,  and  last 
but  not  least,  the  prevalence  of  land  speculation." 

Among  the  remedies  proposed  for  the  situation  thus  depicted 
is  the  following : 

"The  revision  of  the  taxation  system  so  as  to  exempt  from 
taxation  all  improvements  and  tax  unused  land  at  its  full  rental 
value." 

It  has  been  noted  with  regret  that  the  members  of  the  Com- 
mission were  divided  in  their  report  upon  the  conditions  which 
appeared  from  their  investigaton.  It  is  therefore  the  more  signifi- 
cant that  the  members  were  practically  agreed  in  their  findings  on 
the  land  question,  as  may  be  noted  from  the  following  views 
expressed  by  other  members  of  the  Commission.  Mr.  Garret- 
son  says : 

81 


"Land  monopoly  with  resulting  prohibitive  price,  the  greatest  in- 
fluence in  creating  congestion  in  the  cities,  bears  its  own  share  of  the 
responsibility  for   unrest. 

"Tracing  the  history  of  every  vanished  civilization  makes  apparent 
the  fact  that  in  every  instance  decadence  was  preceded  by  urban  con- 
gestion and  by  immense  land  holdings  by  the  aristocrat  or  the  capitalist. 

"In  the  question  of  dealing  with  the  land,  should  not  the  same 
doctrine  be  applied  to  land  that,  in  the  arid  States,  is  applied  to  water, 
i.  e.,  that  no  more  land  can  be  held  by  an  individual  than  he  can  put 
to  productive  use,  thus  making  unused  land  revert  to  the  State  and 
acquirable  by  those  who  would  utilize  it?" 

In  a  report  signed  by  Commissioners  Commons,  Harriman, 
Weinstock,  Ballard  and  Aishton  appears  the  following: 

"One  of  the  growing  evils  to  be  feared  is  the  increasing  congestion 
of  populated  centers  at  the  expense  of  the  rural  districts.  This  is  true 
not  only  of  America  but  also  of  Europe.  The  allurements  of  the  city 
tend  to  draw  annually  thousands  from  the  country  to  the  city.  Congested 
cities,  especially  in  hard  times,  mean  enlarged  ranks  of  the  unemployed. 

"This  tendency  is  strengthened  where  the  struggle  of  the  small 
farmer,  not  only  to  hold  on  to  his  land  but  to  make  a  living,  becomes 
hopeless;  and  where  the  conditions  are  such  that  the  farm  laborer  or 
the  farm  tenant  sees  little  or  no  possibility  of  becoming  a  future  land- 
owner. 

"Not  least  among  the  causes  of  higher  cost  of  living  has  been  the 
tendency  to  increase  city  populations  at  the  expense  of  agricultural 
populations,  thus  decreasing  relatively  the  supply  and  increasing  the 
demand,  and  thereby  inevitably  raising  the  cost  of  food. 

"The  last  census  shows  that  we  are  becoming  the  victims  of  in- 
creasing absentee  landlordism  and  farm  tenancy.  It  points  out  that 
while  the  number  of  farm  owners  during  the  preceding  decade  increased 
8  per  cent,  the  number  of  farm  tenants  increased  16  per  cent.  If  this 
ratio  should  continue  for  a  few  more  decades,  many  parts  of  our  Re- 
public will  find  themselves  in  the  condition  from  which  Ireland  has  so 
recently   emerged. 

"In  Texas  this  Commission  found  a  condition  of  farm  tenancy  like 
that  of  Ireland  and  seemingly  typical  of  growing  conditions  in  various 
parts  of  the  country.  We  therefore  recommend  to  Congress  and  to  the 
various  States,  that  steps  shall  be  taken  to  lighten  the  burden  of  the 
small  farmer,  and  make  it  more  possible  to  encourage  the  tenant,  farm 
laborer,   and  city  dweller,  to  become  land  proprietors." 

The  findings  of  the  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations  con- 
tain nothing  new  to  any  one  at  all  familiar  with  the  facts  con- 
cerning our  land  system.  These  facts  have  long  been  known, 
and  many  remedies  have  been  proposed,  but  to  no  good  purpose, 

82 


owing  either  to  the  insufficiency  of  the  proposals  themselves  or 
to  a  lack  of  comprehension  of  the  real  remedy. 

The  expedients  by  which  landlordism  has  been  relieved  of 
the  pressure  that  constantly  bears  upon  it  from  all  sides  have 
exhausted  the  ingenuity  of  statesmen  and  reformers.  Each  step 
in  the  "progress  of  reform"  has  proved  but  a  step  toward  further 
disappointment  and  final  disillusionment.  The  only  remaining 
hope  of  general  and  permanent  peace  lies  not  in  reform,  but  in 
restitution — in  restoring  the  land  to  the  people. 

The  method  of  accomplishing  this  end  is  a  subject  beyond 
the  scope  of  these  remarks.  It  may  be  pointed  out,  however,  that 
the  process  of  restitution  involves  no  element  of  confiscation. 
Land  now  privately  owned  and  in  productive  use  may  continue  to 
be  so  owned  and  used. 

The  essential  difference  between  public  and  private  owner- 
ship of  land  consists  in  the  method  of  appropriating  the  proceeds 
of  land  value,  whether  to  public  or  to  private  uses.  Any  plan  that 
insures  that  the  proceeds  of  land  value — themselves  a  creation  of 
the  public — shall  be  appropriated  to  public  uses  will  accomplish 
the  object  of  public  ownership,  while  leaving  the  private  owner 
in  undisturbed  possession  of  the  proceeds  derived  from  the  tise 
of  the  land. 

We  may  safely  assume  that  any  such  plan  will  meet  wath 
opposition  and  encounter  difficulties.  This  much  may  be  predicted 
of  any  other  conceivable  plan.  Something,  however,  may  be 
gained  by  a  clear  recognition  of  the  fundamental  cause  of  all  war 
and  a  firm  declaration  of  action  directed  to  the  removal  of  that 
cause. 

Who  knows  but  this  International  Peace  Congress  may  strike 
a  note  that  shall  be  heard  above  the  din  of  war  and  find  an  echo 
in  hearts  long  since  dead  to  all  hopes  of  peace,  or  living  only  in 
hope  of  the  return  of  armed  peace,  the  "peace  that  reigned  at 
Warsaw." 

A  simple  declaration  in  favor  of  a  policy  which  shall  restore 
the  land  to  the  people,  made  by  anybody  invested  with  authority 
to  establish  peace,  would  of  itself  exert  a  more  potent  influence 
upon  the  mind  and  temper  of  mankind  than  any  plan  to  "prevent" 
war  by  the  cunningly  devised  and  elaborately  worked-out 
expedients  of  force  and  formality. 

83 


Possibly  it  is  vain  to  look  for  such  a  declaration  from  any 
body  of  statesmen  or  soldiers.  The  more  need,  then,  that  all 
bodies  of  citizens  such  as  that  here  assembled  shall  declare  in 
favor  of  that  policy  which,  by  conforming  himian  conduct  in  the 
use  of  the  land  to  the  natural  law  of  human  existence,  shall 
remove  the  cause  of  conflict  and  restore  harmony  between  man 
and  nature. 

By  this  means  alone  may  we  hope  to  make  a  beginning  in 
the  work  of  real  civilization,  the  work  of  establishing  permanent 
peace  among  the  peoples  of  the  earth. 


84 


World  Organization 

Hon.  Henri  LaFontaine 

THE  question  of  world  organization  is  one  of  the  most 
difficult  to  explain,  and  I  feel  a  little  that  my  address  this 
evening  will  not  prove  very  enlightening.  The  question  is 
very  complicated,  and  many  people  think  that  it  is  imbecilic  to 
organize  the  world;  but  on  the  contrary  I  have  grafted  projects 
which  seem  very  easy  to  realize,  but  which,  in  fact,  are  interesting 
projects  and  have  no  basis  in  the  past.  In  my  opinion,  when  we 
try  to  organize  the  world,  we  must  find  out  how  the  evolution  of 
the  world  went  on  through  the  centuries,  A  short  sketch  of  what 
happened  during  the  centuries  is  perhaps  necessary. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  world  it  seems  that  every  man  was 
at  war  with  every  other  man,  and  after  some  centuries,  perhaps 
ten  or  twelve  centuries,  or  perhaps  more,  thousands  of  years, 
small  groups  of  men  or  tribes,  perhaps  two,  three  or  four  families, 
strong  enough  to  struggle  against  the  enemies  that  surrounded 
them,  would  band  themselves  together,  and  so  also  other  tribes 
were  organized  to  struggle  one  against  another.  Then  later  on 
many  tribes  came  together  to  form  the  beginning  of  a  small  nation, 
and  they  also  went  to  war  against  other  nations,  other  such  small 
gatherings  of  men,  and  formed  larger  groups  of  people.  We 
know  now  by  history  that  in  Greece,  for  example — it  is  a  very 
small  country,  as  you  know,  not  larger  than  my  own  country, 
Belgium — there  were  a  lot  of  small  groups  or  bands  fighting 
one  against  the  other  through  centuries  in  Belgium ;  also  we  had 
nine  or  ten  small  nations.  There  counts  and  viscounts  and  arch- 
bishops and  small  republics  went  to  war  one  against  the  other 
through  centuries ;  and  in  France  all  the  provinces  went  to  war 
one  against  the  other.  In  Germany  you  know  that  in  the  modem 
times  war  was  going  on  between  all  such  small  organized  nation- 
alities existing  there.  The  whole  history  of  Italy  is  a  long  story 
of  war  between  the  republics  and  the  different  small  nations  form- 
ing modern  Italy.  And  then  we  see  such  nations — such  small 
nations — trying  to  get  together  and  to  form  larger  nations ;  and 

85 


so  in  modern  times  France  was  created  as  a  nation,  Great  Britain 
was  formed  as  a  nation,  Italy  in  the  last  century  was  formed  as 
a  nation,  and  Germany,  the  last  of  all,  was  formed  an  empire 
in  1817. 

What  would  happen  if  that  evolution  would  go  on?  No 
doubt  all  the  nations  of  the  world  would  get  together  in  one  large 
republic  or  empire.  Some  men  have  tried  to  realize  such  an 
empire.  The  Catholic  Church  has.  Even  before  the  rulers  of 
Spain,  the  Roman  Empire,  realized  perhaps  the  largest  empire, 
and  where  relative  peace  existed  during  a  certain  number  of 
centuries.  In  modern  times  Napoleon  tried  to  mold  a  larger 
empire,  and  to-day  it  seems  in  the  minds  of  some  Germans,  per- 
haps, to  organize  a  sort  of  vast  empire  throughout  the  world. 
All  such  empires  that  were  based  on  force  and  might  couldn't  be 
maintained.  They  were  always  defeated,  and  war  went  on 
between  the  different  parts  of  such  empires.  So  if  we  take  the 
experience  of  the  centuries,  it  is,  in  a  certain  sense,  that  we  should 
achieve  some  sort  of  a  world  organization.  Here  in  America 
some  men  have  proposed  that  the  world  should  be  organized  as 
your  republic  is  organized ;  that  there  should  be  a  parliament,  a 
supreme  court,  an  executive  board,  and  that  if  that  could  be  done, 
peace  would  last  for  centuries  and  we  would  have  no  more  war. 
That  is,  as  I  say,  a  very  simple  project,  but  it  is  not  probable  that 
it  can  be  accepted  after  this  war  at  once.  At  least  it  can  be 
accepted  as  an  ideal,  to  which  we  may  try  to  come  slowly  after, 
perhaps,  new  struggles. 

If  we  try  to  find  out  what  was  realized  in  war,  and  what 
could  be  done  in  perfecting  what  was  realized,  I  think  that  it 
would  be  possible  to  come  to  some  organization.  There  exists 
now  in  the  world  a  sort  of  legislature.  You  will  remember  that 
in  1899,  at  The  Hague,  the  first  peace  conference  came  together. 
The  conference  was  composed  of  delegates  of  twenty-six  nations, 
twenty-six  states,  the  biggest  states  in  the  world — the  great 
powers,  they  call  themselves — and  a  certain  number  of  what  was 
at  the  time  said  to  be  the  civilized  nations.  All  the  South  Ameri- 
can states  and  some  small  states  were  not  members  of  that  first 
Hague  conference.  At  The  Hague  conference  the  diplomats 
came  together  and  discussed  the  laws  of  war,  and  adopted  a  whole 
series  of  conventions,  which  were  all  violated  in  the  actual  war. 
After  they  had  discussed  about  eight  or  nine  weeks  questions  of 


war,  the  men  and  women  who  were  at  The  Hague,  representing 
the  peace  people  all  over  the  world,  protested  so  strongly  that  the 
diplomats  were  obliged  to  discuss  other  questions  and,  namely, 
the  question  of  an  international  judicature,  or  a  supreme  court. 
After  many  discussions,  which  lasted  weeks,  the  diplomats 
accepted  a  convention  which  started  the  cause  of  arbitration  now 
existing.  That  organization  was  not  a  court.  It  was  called  a 
court  because  peace  people  and  other  people  all  over  the  world 
asked  for  a  court,  but  in  fact  it  was  only  a  list  of  men,  prepared 
to  be  arbitrators  when  some  difHculty  should  arise  between  nations 
or  between  states.  We  asked  at  the  time  that  such  a  court  should 
be  compensated,  that  the  states  should  be  obliged  to  come  before 
this  court  with  their  disputes,  but  at  the  same  time  the  con- 
ference— the  peace  conference — had  accepted  as  a  whole  that  no 
convention  could  be  drafted  and  would  be  accepted  by  the  states 
if  one  state  was  opposed  to  it.  But  one  state  refused  to  accept 
compulsory  arbitration,  and  that  state  was  Germany.  Germany 
opposed  alone  against  the  will  of  the  twenty-five  nations  repre- 
sented at  The  Hague,  without  any  other  exceptions.  One  of  the 
delegates  of  the  German  Empire,  who  was  there,  was  an  old 
friend  of  mine,  one  of  the  best  jurists  in  Germany,  and  against 
his  own  opinion  he  was  obliged  to  say  that  Germany  refused  to 
sign  the  treaty  of  compulsory  arbitration,  and  the  whole  scheme 
was  dropped. 

The  second  conference  came  together  in  1907.  That  was  a 
conference  to  which  forty-six  states  sent  delegates.  In  fact,  all 
of  the  states  of  the  world  were  represented  at  The  Hague  con- 
ference with  the  exception  o£  some  very  small  ones,  such  as 
Panama.  There  were  three  or  four  other  small  states  not  repre- 
sented. You  can  see  that,  in  fact,  the  entire  humanity  was  repre- 
sented at  the  second  Hague  conference.  At  this  conference  the 
same  dispute  was  started.  The  proposition  of  compulsory  arbitra- 
tion was  proposed  by  the  delegates  and  supported  by  the  British 
and  the  French  representatives.  The  scheme  was  very  well  pro- 
posed and  very  well  started,  and  the  project  could  have  been 
accepted  very  easily  by  all  the  states,  and  was  in  fact  accepted 
by  thirty-two  states.  Only  thirteen  abstained  from  voting,  and 
one  voted  against — naturally  Germany.  So  the  second  time  that 
project  was  dropped. 

87 


At  the  same  time,  and  by  a  sort  of   contradiction  which 
nobody  could  explain,  the  United  States,  Germany  and  Great 
Britain  together  proposed  a  scheme  for  a  court  of  international 
justice;  no  mere  court  of  arbitration,  but  a  tribunal— a  supreme 
court,  as  you  call  it  here  in  America.     The  whole  scheme  was 
accepted  unanimously,  or  nearly  unanimously,  with  only  three  or 
four  exceptions  for  secondary  motives.     And  the  whole  scheme 
was  accepted,  the  convention  was  drafted  and  signed,  but  the 
delegates  from  the  states  could  not  agree  about  the  number  of 
the  judges.    In  the  scheme  which  was  accepted  the  supreme  court 
was  to  be  composed  of  fifteen  judges  only,  and  there  were  forty- 
six  states.    Out  of  the  forty-six  states  eight  states,  the  big  powers, 
asked  to  have  each  at  least  one  judge,  and  give  to  all  the  other 
states,   the   thirty-eight    states,    seven   judges.      All   the    South 
American  states  and  all  the  smaller  states  opposed  such  a  proposi- 
tion.   They  said  it  was  contrary  to  the  equality  of  the  states,  that 
all  states  had  the  same  rights,  and  there  was  only  one  possible 
means  for  electing  the  judges,  and  that  was  to  vote  on  a  list, 
upon  which  men  of  the  highest  standing  in  the  judiciary— judges 
and  lawyers  and  professors  of  international  law,  very  well-known 
men  of  high  capacity — should  be  placed  as  candidates,  and  that 
was  refused  by  the  big  powers.    They  could  not  agree  about  it,  so 
that  the  whole  project  was  also  dropped.     But  what  is  interest- 
ing is  the  fact  that  the  project  was  proposed  and  that  there  is  a 
convention  which  could  be  accepted  and  could  be  realized  very 
easily  if  some  understanding  could  be  agreed  upon  on  the  ques- 
tion of  the  number  and  so  forth  of  the  judges. 

Besides  that  court  of  international  justice  there  was  proposed 
an  international  court  of  prizes  to  judge  the  questions  of  prize, 
which  are  now  so  important  in  this  war.  As  you  know,  when  a 
prize  vessel  is  captured  by  a  warship  the  merchant  ship  is  sent 
to  port,  and  it  is  judged  there  whether  it  contains  contraband  of 
war  or  not.  A  judgment  is  made  in  the  case  and  a  demand  is 
made  of  the  nation  which  has  made  the  prize.  The  judges  are 
judges  of  the  country  making  the  capture,  which  is  contrary,  as 
you  know,  to  all  the  principles  of  law  and  of  good  justice.  It 
was  asked  that  if  such  judgments  were  to  be  maintained,  at  least 
the  people  interested  in  such  a  prize  should  go  before  a  court  of 
appeals,  and  the  court  of  appeals  should  be  an  international  court, 
composed  of  judges   of  neutral   states   such  as   should   not  be 

88 


directly  interested  in  the  case.  That  proposition  was  completed. 
That  convention  was  signed.  The  choice  of  judges  was  accepted. 
It  is  a  fairly  complicated  system.  I  cannot  explain  it  to  you 
because  they  tried  to  form  a  court  in  which  the  neutral  should 
have  the  deciding  voice,  but  each  of  the  nations  of  which  the 
citizens  would  have  been  interested  in  the  dispute  could  have  also 
a  judge.  But  nevertheless  that  court  is  accepted,  and  what  is 
very  interesting,  not  alone  a  state  may  plead  against  anothei 
state  in  such  an  international  court,  but  a  private  person,  who  has 
merchandise  on  such  a  captured  ship,  could  appeal  to  such  a  court 
directly  and  sue  another  state  that  may  be  brought  before  the 
court.  Even  if  a  state  comes  before  such  a  court  the  judges 
will  have  the  right  to  judge  the  cause  and  to  condemn  the  state. 
So  you  see  one  of  the  biggest  problems  in  international  law  was 
solved,  and  this  was  one  of  the  most  unexpected  issues  that  was 
ever  made  an  international  convention. 

Now  what  can  we  do?  If  we  think  about  what  happened  at 
The  Hague  at  that  meeting  or  conference  of  forty-six  states,  the 
first  and  only  conference  in  which  all  the  states  came  together,  not 
after  a  war,  not  to  settle  difficulties  existing  before,  but  to  make 
law  for  the  future,  to  appeal  to  a  parliament,  we  must  have  some 
hope  for  the  future.  And  very  unexpected  and  important  con- 
tracts result  from  such  conferences  between  nations.  Some  people 
always  speak  of  The  Hague  conference  as  though  it  were  a  con- 
ference to  stop  war  and  that  you  could  not  do  this ;  that  war  has 
never  made  such  progress  as  it  has  recently.  The  world  moves 
on  and  progresses  but  slowly,  so  we  see  that  the  fact  that  The 
Hague  conference  could  come  together,  that  all  the  states  were 
represented  there,  and  that  they  discussed  questions  of  law 
for  the  future  was  important  in  itself,  for  it  was  really  the  begin- 
ning of  an  international  parliament  in  which  all  the  states  will 
be  present,  voting  all  equally  and  making  law  for  the  future. 

We  propose  that  after  this  war.  The  Hague  conference,  in- 
stead of  being  a  peace  conference,  as  we  call  it,  should  be  called 
a  conference  of  the  states,  and  should  have  for  its  mission  the 
making  of  international  law  for  all  civil  domains,  not  alone  de- 
ciding questions  of  war,  but  all  civil  questions  where  it  is  neces- 
sary to  have  international  law. 

This  afternoon  at  our  session  it  was  asked  what  sort  of  ques- 
tions are  justiciable  questions,  and  what  sort  of  questions  are  non- 
89 


justiciable  questions,  and  what  sort  of  questions  could  come  be- 
fore such  a  court,  and  I  explained  that  all  questions  can  become 
justiciable  questions.  Assume  there  exists  an  international  con- 
vention establishing  an  international  law,  say,  for  all  the  questions 
which  to-day  are  considered  as  non- judicial  questions,  because 
there  exists  no  international  law  covering  them.  A  conference  of 
the  states  or  international  parliament  could  make  an  international 
law  concerning  such  matters  and  render  judicial  all  conceivable 
questions  between  the  states,  so  that  the  domain  of  justice  can 
be  enlarged  every  day  more  and  more.  Now  the  domain  of  jus- 
tice between  these  states  becomes  every  day  larger.  There  are 
every  day  more  and  more  difficulties  between  the  states,  for  the 
very  simple  reason  that  the  relations — the  international  rela- 
tions— between  nations  are  growing  every  day.  We  have  had  true 
international  growth  going  on.  Take,  for  instance,  postal  ques- 
tions, tariff  questions,  etc.  To-day  the  commerce  of  the 
world  is  growing  or  was  growing  before  the  war  in  unexpected 
proportions.  About  such  questions  there  are  always  points  that 
must  be  settled.  Most  of  the  time  they  are  determined  very  easily, 
but  nevertheless  they  are  very  important  questions,  such  as  mat- 
ters affecting  the  duty  on  certain  products,  and  questions  concern- 
ing international  railways  and  so  forth.  To-day  we  can  sail  all 
over  the  world  and  throughout  all  the  world,  Asia,  Africa,  and 
Europe.  There  are  at  present  very  important  questions,  because 
we  have  to-day  international  trains  and  shipping  lines.  We  have 
also  some  questions  which  cannot  arise  in  America,  but  in  Europe 
they  are  much  more  complicated.  You  can  go  from  the  southern 
part  of  Spain,  through  France,  Germany,  Russia  and  Siberia,  clear 
to  the  end  of  Siberia.  You  can  make  the  whole  trip  through  a 
great  number  of  states.  Suppose  some  one  is  obliged  to  go  at 
once  from  one  end  of  the  continent  to  the  other,  to  resolve  such 
questions  makes  also  big  difficulties  between  the  states.  Postal 
questions,  for  instance,  questions  pertaining  to  the  tariff  and  to 
international  transportation  are  mvolved.  We  have  now  inter- 
national bureaus.  One  exists  at  Berne,  Switzerland,  to  take  care 
of  the  question  of  transportation  which  to-day  has  the  right  to 
adjudicate  the  difficulties  arising  between  the  states  concerning  the 
affairs  of  railways,  of  telegraph  or  telephone,  of  postal  facilities 
and  letters  and  other  things  sent  by  postal.  If  the  conventions 
which  would  be  necessary  to  be  made  to  bring  such  difficulties 

90 


under  general  international  rule  could  be  given  over  to  a  body — to 
an  international  body — which  could  meet  often  and  regularly, 
there  is  no  doubt  that  the  domain  of  justice,  that  the  number  of 
judicial  questions,  would  grow  in  very  fast  and  very  large  pro- 
portions. 

Now,  the  propositions  which  are  made  are  the  following:  I 
have  been  as  short  as  possible,  and  not  to  take  so  much  of  your 
time  on  such  a  very  special  program,  I  will  hasten  over  these 
matters  as  quickly  as  I  can. 

The  conference  of  the  states  was  convened,  as  you  will  re- 
member, in  1899  and  in  1907,  by  the  Czar  of  Russia.  The 
American  delegation,  instructed  by  one  of  your  Secretaries  of 
State,  Mr.  Root,  asked  that  the  peace  conference  in  the  future 
should  come  together  automatically,  without  convocation,  as  a 
true  parliament,  as  your  parliament  and  our  parliaments  in  Europe 
come  together  every  year  at  a  certain  date,  without  interference 
from  a  congress  or  a  president  or  anybody.  Parliament  comes 
together  because  our  public  interest  must  be  discussed.  You 
asked  the  same  for  the  international  parliament  as  for  the  con- 
ference of  states,  that  they  should  come  together  as  often  as 
possible,  and  it  should  come  together  without  convocation  at  a 
certain  date,  and  it  is  proposed  that  a  conference  of  states  should 
come  together  the  18th  of  May,  which  is  the  date  of  the  first  con- 
ference. The  conference  should  not  alone  come  together,  but  it 
should  be  prepared.  The  great  difificulties  which  arose  in  1899 
and  in  1907  at  The  Hague  had  for  their  basis  the  fact  that  no 
provision  was  made  for  discussion  before  the  conference.  Nothing 
was  prepared,  and  many  discussions  were  certainly  of  a  very  large 
value.  Now  the  states  have  so  well  understood  what  was  neces- 
sary that  fourteen  states  out  of  forty-six  have  started  commis- 
sions— special  commissions — to  study  the  questions  which  could 
come  before  the  next  conference,  the  third  Hague  conference, 
which  would  have  come  together  this  year,  in  1915;  so  the  ques- 
tion of  preparation  of  the  next  conference  is  accepted  by  the  main 
states  of  the  world.  Fourteen  have  started  these  commissions,  and 
also  they  have  been  organized  by  the  smaller  states,  so  you  see 
if  we  ask  that  some  legislative  body  should  be  organized  after 
this  war  is  over,  and  should  come  together  as  soon  as  possible — 
it  is  proposed  it  should  come  together  every  two  years — we  ask 

91 


not  a  thing  which  is  too  new,  in  fact  it  is  accepted  by  the  states 
in  principle. 

The  second  body  which  would  be  necessary  to  be  organized, 
is  the  international  court  of  justice,  and  after  what  I  have  said 
to  you,  you  see  also  that  the  states  are  ready  to  accept  such  a 
court,  and  if  we  can  agree,  if  the  states  can  agree  that  unanimity 
is  no  more  necessary  to  organize  an  international  body  in  the 
future,  that  such  a  court  will  be  organized  by  the  thirty-two  states 
at  least,  who  were  willing  to  do  it  in  1907,  and  if  Germany,  after 
this  war,  and  Austria,  and  Turkey  are  unwilling  to  accept  this 
international  creed,  all  the  other  states  of  the  world  can  organize 
such  a  judicial  court. 

Now  comes  the  third  question,  which  is  the  most  important 
and  perhaps  the  most  difficult.  It  is  the  organization  of  an  inter- 
national executive.  Will  there  be  a  world  congress  or  an  emperor 
to  form  the  third  power,  as  we  call  it  in  our  national  constitu- 
tions? I  think  that  would  be  too  ambitious  an  aim  at  this  mo- 
ment, and  I  think  that  even  a  president  as  your  president  would 
not  be  willing  to  be  the  president  of  the  world,  and  perhaps 
would  not  be  accepted  by  the  other  states  as  the  president  of  the 
world.  I  think  it  is  necessary  to  have  at  once  true  executive 
power,  as  it  exists  inside  of  the  states.  It  would  be  sufficient 
to  have  a  sort  of  administrative  bureau,  a  central  bureau,  which 
w^ould  have  in  hand  all  the  special  bureaus  now  existing,  as 
those  for  the  posts  and  telegraphs  and  railways,  about  which  we 
spoke  a  few  moments  ago.  If  all  such  bureaus  could  be  gathered 
together  and  form  a  sort  of  international  bureau,  it  might  be 
advisable.  At  this  moment  there  exists  ninety  of  such  bureaus, 
many  of  them  absolutely  unknown  to  the  peoples.  I  am  sure 
that  the  big  majority  of  you  do  not  know  much  about  such 
bureaus.  I  will  only  speak  about  one.  For  example,  the  map 
of  the  world  is  now  made  under  joint  international  rules  by  all 
the  states,  and  in  some  years  we  have  a  general  map  of  the  world 
made  after  the  same  proportions,  and  in  which  all  the  features 
of  the  world  will  be  printed  after  certain  general  rules.  And 
there  is  a  general  central  committee,  composed  of  delegates  of 
different  states,  which  is  at  the  head  of  such  big  enterprise.  The 
map  of  the  sky  also  is  now  made  and  is  nearly  completed,  done 
with  the  aid  of  the  astronomical  organizations  of  different  states. 
Nearly  all  the  observatories  all  over  the  world  are  taking  photo- 

92 


graphs  regularly,  photographs  of  the  sky,  to  make  such  a  map. 
The  whole  questions  of  geography,  the  measure  of  the  earth,  is 
also  under  international  direction,  scientific  international  direc- 
tion, by  all  the  states,  and  so  on.  There  are  ninety  of  such 
organizations.  If  you  could  bring  them  together  under  one 
direction,  you  would  have  the  beginning  of  an  international 
government  without  the  power  of  police,  which  is  the  character- 
istic, as  you  know,  of  the  executive  power. 

Now,  that  question  of  police  is  one  that  is  the  most  discussed 
at  this  time.  People  say  that  to  maintain  peace  it  will  be  neces- 
sary to  enforce  peace,  and  this  afternoon  we  had  a  very  interest- 
ing paper  read  by  Mr.  Loomis  on  that  question.  Now,  in  my 
opinion,  I  think  also  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  enforce  peace 
in  a  certain  measure,  and  some  of  us  think  the  whole  project  of 
organization  of  force  should  be  behind  the  law.  Many  people 
think  that  armies  as  they  exist  now  should  go  on,  that  military 
organizations  of  the  world  should  be  maintained,  and  that  by 
some  agreement  between  the  states  it  would  be  possible  to  bring 
all  such  armies  together,  if  some  difficulty  arises.  Others  think 
that  after  this  war  all  the  states  will  accept  the  principle  that 
all  armies  are  only  defensive  armies,  and  they  will  be  obliged 
to  accept  such  a  principle,  so  that  most  of  the  states  have  always 
said  to  their  own  peoples  that  if  they  had  big  armies  it  was  for 
the  defense  of  that  nation  and  not  to  attack  another  nation,  and  if 
it  is  truly  that  the  armies  are  only  armies  of  defense,  they  can  be 
organized  very  differently  than  they  are  organized  now.  It  will 
be  no  more  necessary  to  have  a  military  class,  men  who  live  with 
the  army  and  who  are  occupied  from  the  morning  to  the  even- 
ing, and  from  the  beginning  of  their  life  as  experts  on  these 
military  questions.  If  truly  all  the  armies  should  be  truly  defens- 
ive armies,  they  should  be  organized  as  the  Swiss  army,  which  is 
truly  a  defensive  army,  and  in  which  not  the  military  are  the 
masters,  but  the  civilians  are  the  masters,  where  a  great  many 
of  the  officers  are  men  whose  time  is  taken  up  with  civil  affairs, 
and  there  are  only  soldiers  and  officers  when  the  country  is 
attacked,  and  not  officers  their  whole  lives  long.  It  makes  a  very 
big  difference  in  the  psychology  of  such  people.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  be  more  than  true  soldiers,  willing  to  fight,  and  thinking  to 
fight  always,  but  men  who  are  interested  in  civil  affairs  and  go  to 
war  only  the  day  they  feel  they  are  attacked.    If  all  the  armies 

93 


would  be  organized  after  such  a  scheme,  it  would  be  possible  per- 
haps then  to  organize  them  in  a  general  police,  but  this  as  you  see 
is  a  very  difficult  and  a  very  special  question,  and  we  cannot  dis- 
cuss it  this  evening.  But  there  is  no  doubt  that  there  is  a  way  out, 
if  there  is  a  possibility  to  organize  an  international  force  of  police, 
for  such  it  is  necessary  to  have  in  my  opinion,  as  Mr.  Loomis 
this  afternoon  suggested.  That  is  also  a  very  big  problem,  and 
to  explain  it,  to  show  that  it  would  act  very  practically  to  have 
an  economic  contribution  for  such  purpose,  it  would  be  necessary 
to  have  at  least  the  time  to  give  you  ten  or  twelve  lectures. 
A  friend  of  mine  has  written  a  book  lately  in  which  he  explains 
how  such  an  economic  pressure  can  oblige  the  state  to  be  ideal. 
So  you  see  that  the  whole  problem  of  the  world  organization  is 
not  an  idealistic  project,  something  far  in  the  future,  but  some- 
thing we  can  realize  very  quickly  and  as  soon  as  the  war  is  over. 

But  to  reach  such  a  desiradatum,  it  is  necessary  that  we 
should  be  organized — we,  the  men  and  women  who  are  willing 
to  realize  a  lasting  peace.  That  question  will  be  discussed,  I 
think,  to-morrow  or  Wednesday — preparedness  for  peace,  and 
then  I  will  explain  to  you  how  I  think  such  an  organization  could 
be  made. 

What  is  the  aim  of  my  address  this  evening,  was  only  to 
show  to  you  that  out  of  the  existing  organization,  out  of  bodies 
who  were  realized,  or  bodies  whose  organization  is  accepted  by 
the  states,  it  is  possible  to  evolve  and  complete  a  new  world 
organization. 


94 


Why  Labor  Opposes  War 

James  W.  Mullen 

IN  treating  the  subject  assigned  me  as  a  subsidiary  to  the 
general  topic,  "War  and  the  Worker,"  I  am  not  called  upon  to 

advance  any  theories  as  to  the  means  of  preventing  war,  nor 
am  I  expected  to  speculate  concerning  the  possibilities  of  total 
prevention.  Rather  is  it  my  duty  to  set  forth  the  reasons  for  the 
opposition  of  the  worker  to  war. 

First  among  the  reasons  may  be  cited  the  fact  that  there 
are  better  means  of  adjusting  differences,  removing  misunder- 
standings and  ending  controversies  than  through  the  spilling  of 
human  blood  and  the  destruction  of  laboriously  produced  treasure, 
and  the  worker  proposes  those  means  shall  be  applied  in  order 
that  humanity  may  mount  to  loftier  heights  of  progress  and 
civilization. 

Labor  is  opposed  to  war  because  it  can  be  productive  of  no 
good  and  must  of  necessity  inflict  untold  hardships  and  miseries 
upon,  not  only  those  actually  engaged  in  it,  but  upon  the  human 
race  as  a  whole.  War  can  mean  to  the  worker  calamity  and 
nothing  more.  There  can  be  no  gain,  no  profit,  no  lightening  of 
toil,  no  brightening  of  life.  It  can  only  bring  to  him  pain  of  body 
and  anguish  of  spirit,  wounds,  disease,  premature  death,  and 
to  his  friends  and  family  suffering  and  ruin  of  the  direst  kind. 
In  earlier  times  even  the  humble  toiler  sometimes  received  sub- 
stantial material  advantages  from  a  victorious  war,  but  modern 
warfare  cannot  even  appeal  to  him  for  support  in  its  carnage 
upon  this  base  ground.  While  on  the  other  hand  the  financial, 
as  well  as  the  other  burdens  of  war,  must  rest  very  largely  upon 
his  shoulders  and  the  shoulders  of  his  offspring  for  long  years 
after  the  close  of  a  modern  conflict. 

Labor  is  opposed  to  war  because  it  sets  us  back  in  our  strug- 
gle to  lift  the  weight  from  the  shoulders  of  heavily  burdened  men 
by  violating  the  finer  sensibilities  of  the  race  and  re-establishing 
the  ruder. 

Labor  is  opposed  to  war  because  the  greater  burdens  of  war 
are  always  packed  upon  the  backs  of  those  who  have  little  or 
nothing  to  say  as  to  whether  war  shall  be. 

95 


Labor  is  opposed  to  war  because  the  workers  favor  freedom 
and  independence,  and  there  can  be  no  freedom,  no  independence, 
no  Hberty  in  war.  All  must  bow  to  the  dictates  of  a  military 
master.  An  army  must  be  subservient  and  slavish  in  order  to 
have  any  chance  for  victory.  Military  discipline  is  destructive 
of  individual  liberty  and  individual  initiative  and  judgment,  and 
thus  leads  in  a  direction  contrary  to  the  ideals  and  hopes  of  the 
worker. 

But  labor  does  not  base  its  opposition  to  war  upon  purely 
selfish  considerations.  It  takes  into  account  the  harm  that  war 
brings  to  the  human  race  as  a  whole,  the  suffering  it  inflicts  upon 
frail  women  and  helpless  children,  the  causeless  hate  it  engenders 
between  naturally  friendly  souls,  the  way  it  turns  tender  hearted 
men  into  vicious  monsters  craving  the  blood  of  their  brothers, 
placing  them  on  a  parity  with  the  wild  beasts  of  the  wood  and  the 
jungle,  the  destruction  of  life  and  property  that  it  entails,  all  to 
no  purpose  save  to  satisfy  the  craving  for  profits  of  the  manufac- 
turers of  implements  of  destruction. 

The  process  of  advancement  of  the  human  race  is  a  slow 
one,  and  anything  that  hinders  or  retards  its  progress  is  detri- 
mental to  all  society.  War,  in  spite  of  the  assertions  of  the 
militarist  to  the  contrary,  does  interfere  with  advancing  civiliza- 
tion by  weakening  the  confidence  and  energy  of  those  who  pro- 
mote it. 

Peace  in  the  world  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  working  out 
of  social  justice,  because  war  draws  public  attention  away  from 
the  objects  of  injustice  which  must  be  attacked  in  order  to  be 
removed,  and  centers  the  thought  of  humanity  almost  entirely 
upon  victory  through  slaughter.  And  the  end  of  every  war  in- 
jects the  soldier  with  his  training  into  civil  affairs  and  changes 
the  mode  and  the  method  of  conducting  them,  and  this  always 
results  in  stagnation  and  reaction.  The  way  of  the  soldier  is 
hasty  and  fraught  with  greater  possibilities  of  error  than  is  the 
patient,  thoughtful  and  deliberate  action  of  the  civilian.  There- 
fore our  interests  can  best  be  served  by  rigidly  adhering  to  a 
policy  of  peace.  This  peace,  of  course,  must  be  founded  upon 
justice,  and  not  a  peace  purchased  at  the  price  of  progress  toward 
a  goal  of  better  things. 

As  modern  war  can  hold  out  no  hope  of  possible  gain  to  the 
worker  and  always  increases  the  burdens  he  must  carry,  there 

96 


can  be  no  reason  advanced,  of  a  material  character,  as  to  why  he 
should  favor  war  as  against  peace. 

Viewing  the  situation  from  its  moral  side,  the  worker  can 
meet  upon  common  ground  with  all  other  advocates  of  peace  and 
co-operate  with  them  in  perfect  harmony.  Life  is  precious  to 
every  human  being  brought  into  the  world.  War  sacrifices  life, 
while  peace  preserves  it.    Then  why  have  war? 

War  always  wipes  out  the  very  flower  of  our  manhood  and 
leaves  the  less  capable  to  promote  the  arts  of  peace,  and  this 
in  itself  exercises  detrimental  influences  upon  progress  which  are 
beyond  calculation,  in  mathematical  terms. 

Nations  that  have  had  long  periods  of  peace  have  also  en- 
joyed a  high  degree  of  civilization.  If  this  be  true,  then  who 
can  say  that  if  the  world  had  never  had  war  our  civilization 
would  not  now  be  much  farther  advanced  ?  It  is  true,  of  course, 
that  some  wars  have  led  to  advancement,  but  these  were  in  a 
world  that  engaged  in  wars,  and  even  these  wars,  it  can  not  be 
said,  would  have  been  necessary  in  a  world  that  knew  no  such 
force. 

We  have  had  thousands  of  years  of  experience  with  war, 
and  the  workers  now  propose  we  shall  try  the  walks  of  peace. 
Every  legitimate  move  to  bring  about  the  establishment  of  peace 
in  the  world  can  count  upon  the  hearty  co-operation  of  the  or- 
ganized toilers  of  the  earth. 


97 


International  Misunderstandings 

KiYO  Sue  Inui 

IN  the  discussion  of  my  subject,  I  shall  confine  my  remarks  to 
misunderstandings  between  the  lands  on  the  Pacific,  especially 
America  and  Japan,  and  the  reasons   for  such  misunder- 
standings. 

Perhaps  the  expression  of  an  extreme  case  of  international 
misunderstanding  can  be  seen  in  the  language  of  a  jingo  of  any 
nation.  In  America  some  would  express  it  in  this  way  (as  an 
extreme  example)  :  "Japan  having  won  in  the  Chino-Japanese 
War,  and  in  the  Russo-Japanese  War,  is  extremely  conscious  of 
her  place  in  the  family  of  nations;  is  increasing  her  army  and 
navy  and  is  ever  ready  to  find  fault  with  the  United  States,  she  is 
even  tr}dng  to  dictate  to  the  internal  policy  of  this  country,  and 
she  is  planning  to  take  possession  of  the  Philippines." 

I  would  like  to  digress  long  enough  to  tell  you  about  a 
dream  I  once  had.  Once  I  was  a  very  ambitious  young  fellow 
who  wanted  to  take  the  Philippines  all  by  myself,  so  I  started 
my  campaign.  As  I  went  on  I  found  that  Japan  was  composed 
of  many  islands  with  a  long  coast  line  to  protect,  I  found  that 
Japan  was  heavily  in  debt;  but  none  of  these  things  discouraged 
me,  so  I  went  to  the  Philippines.  Upon  my  arrival  there  I  found 
the  Philippines  were  also  composed  of  many  islands  and  a  long 
coast  line  to  protect.  I  found  that  America  at  one  time  was 
spending  more  than  eighty  million  dollars  a  year  to  govern  the 
islands.  I  figured  if  fifty  million  Japanese  got  possession  of  the 
Philippines  and  spent  eighty  million  dollars  annually  in  order  to 
govern  them,  it  would  make  every  one  of  us  one  dollar  and 
seventy-five  cents  poorer  annually.  Hence  I  gave  up  my  con- 
quest of  the  Philippines.  Then  I  became  anxious  and  ambitious 
to  take  possession  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  so  I  went  there. 
When  I  reached  there  I  found  that  the  Japanese  were  making 
quite  a  good  living;  they  were  happy,  well  protected  and 
governed  without  costing  Japan  one  cent.  I  gave  up  my  cam- 
paign there. 

But  in  my  jingoist  dream,  I  wanted  possession  of  the  Pacific 
Coast  of  the  United  States.   So  I  started  a  campaign  again ;  this 

98 


time  I  was  better  prepared  with  two  experts  to  help  me — one 
a  mihtary  authority,  the  other  a  financial  expert.  I  called  my 
financier  and  asked  him,  "Do  you  suppose  that  you  could  start 
a  war  against  the  United  States?"  While  he  could  not  give  me 
an  immediate  answer,  he  went  around  the  world  and  came  back 
and  said:  "Mr.  Inui,  I  do  not  believe  that  I  can  start  and  finish 
a  war  for  you  or  any  other  nation  against  the  United  States." 
But  I  was  not  disappointed.  I  called  my  military  expert  and  told 
him  I  want  to  have  a  war  with  the  United  States.  How  many 
soldiers  have  you  in  Japan?"  He  answered  most  seriously,  "In 
a  war  with  the  United  States  it  is  not  a  question  of  how  many 
soldiers  we  have  in  Japan,  it  is  a  question  of  how  many  we  can 
send  over  there.  It  would  take  twenty  transports  of  an  ocean- 
going class  to  send  one  division  of  the  Japanese  army  of  ten 
thousand  men  against  the  United  States.  We  have  about  thirty- 
three  transports,  we  can  send  for  you  at  the  most  two  divisions. 
If  that  is  enough,  you  go  ahead."  But  I  was  not  quite  sure 
whether  that  would  "do  the  job,"  so  I  had  to  go  in  a  vain  attempt 
to  find  better  authority  on  this  matter.  Neither  Napoleon,  Bis- 
marck, Gengheskahn,  nor  Gordon,  could  help  me,  so  I  had  to 
come  back  to  this  country.  I  found  help  from  an  American  on 
this  matter  concerning  the  American  invasion  and  defence.  Upon 
opening  the  first  chapter  of  the  History  of  the  United  States 
I  found  the  greatest  authority  of  them  all,  George  Washington, 
who  said  to  me  smilingly :  "Young  man,  there  is  no  group  of  two 
or  three  nations  that  can  defeat  the  United  States  on  her  own 
shores  in  one  hundred  years."  I  had  to  believe  him  because  he 
never  told  a  lie,  and  ever  since  I  have  been  a  pacifist.  Perhaps 
a  Japanese  Washington  may  have  the  same  answer  about  the 
invasion  of  Japan  by  any  other  country. 

At  any  rate,  the  American  jingo  may  insist:  Japan  is 
increasing  her  army  and  navy  to  take  possession  of  the  Philip- 
pines, occupy  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  come  to  the  Pacific  coast, 
dictate  the  internal  policy  of  California,  find  fault  with  the 
United  States ;  always  looking  for  trouble,  ever  ready  to  jump 
on  us  at  the  slighest  provocation. 

I  may  as  well  confess  that  there  are  some  Japanese  jingoists. 
The  one  consolation  is  that  these  Japanese  jingoists  don't  talk 
quite  so  loud  at  home  as  here,  but  they  talk  and  they  dream — 

99 


some  of  them  dream  out  loud — so  let  me  dream  in  that  fashion 
and  tell  you  what  the  Japanese  jingo  might  say  on  this  point. 
From  the  other  side,  to  the  Japanese  jingo,  it  might  look  this  way : 

"How  did  America  come  into  possesion  of  the  great  country 
she  has?  She  simply  drove  the  Indians,  the  orignial  owners  of 
the  land,  away.  The  United  States  rebelled  from  their  mother 
country  and  formed  the  original  thirteen  colonies.  Not  satis- 
fied with  that  they  compelled  Spain  to  sell  Florida,  and  France, 
Louisiana.  Not  satisfied  with  that  they  forced  Mexico  into  a 
fight  with  them  and  took  in  the  great  territory  of  Texas,  larger 
than  France,  England  and  Germany  or  Japan.  Not  satisfied  with 
that  they  claimed  Oregon  and  California,  and  even  Alaska  they 
bought  for  a  mere  song.  Not  satisfied  with  this  great  land  from 
coast  to  coast  they  declared  for  themselves  the  guardianship  of 
the  North  American  continent — in  terms  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 
They  said  to  Europe:  'Europe,  mind  your  own  business.  You 
can't  come  to  these  shores  and  do  anything  on  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic'  And  no  one  said  anything  against  it,  at  least  not 
out  loud. 

"So  in  1898  they  stretched  their  hands  half  across  the  Pacific 
and  got  possession  of  the  Sandwich  Islands,  the  Hawaiian 
Islands;  but  the  aggressive  Yankee  found  it  was  simply  his 
elbow  reach,  so  he  stretched  his  hand  to  the  other  side  of  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  leaving  the  Monroe  Doctrine  at  home  to  look 
out  for  itself,  and  got  possession  of  the  Philippines.  But  he 
excuses  himself  by  saying:  'We  didn't  want  them,  but  we  got 
them,  so  we  are  going  to  keep  them  for  a  while.'  Yes,  they  are 
keeping  them,  they  are  fortifying  them,  they  are  strengthening 
them,  and  have  finished  building  the  Panama  Canal  so  they  can 
transfer  their  Atlantic  fleet  to  the  Pacific  on  an  hour's  notice." 
Thus  Japanese  jingoists  may  reason. 

Furthermore,  in  her  existence  of  more  than  2,575  years, 
Japan  has  fought  only  five  foreign  wars.  In  less  than  140  years 
America  has  fought  four  foreign  wars.  The  ratio  is  something 
like  once  in  every  forty  years  for  America  and  once  in  every 
five  hundred  and  fifteen  years  for  Japan.  Therefore,  there  is 
a  greater  possibility  of  America  invading  Japan,  making  the 
Sandwich  Islands  and  the  Philippines  bases  for  such  an  attack, 
than  Japan  coming  five  thousand  miles  to  invade  California. 

100 


Again,  that  Japan's  emblem  is  the  chrysanthemum — calm, 
quiet  and  peaceful;  and  America's  emblem  is  the  eagle — ready 
to  grab  anything. 

Now  how  does  it  happen  that  we  have  such  extreme  mis- 
understandings on  both  sides  of  the  Pacific,  even  though  by  a 
very  small  faction  of  people?  Why  is  it  that  we  have  come 
to  allow  them  to  exist  ? 

1.  The  written  history  of  the  world  has  been  the  history 
of  Europe,  and  only  lately  that  of  America  was  meagerly  added. 
While  in  recent  years  the  existence,  value  and  contribution  of 
the  Oriental  civiHzation  are  fast  becoming  recognized,  yet  hereto- 
fore they  have  been  practically  ignored  and  neglected  by 
historians  and  writers  of  the  West.  In  later  years,  however, 
as  pacifists  are  raising  their  voices  against  an  undue  emphasis 
upon  wars  and  heroes  of  war,  likewise  we  urge  the  peace 
advocates  that  they  might  insist  on  the  study  of  the  history  and 
conditions  of  the  East  in  western  schools.  We  do  this  not 
necessarily  because  the  West  learns  anything  from  the  East,  but 
because  you  may  understand  what  the  eastern  people  are  think- 
ing and  doing. 

2.  Again,  there  are  some  differences  between  the  East  and 
the  West  which  lead  to  misunderstanding.  It  is  difificult  to  tell 
which  is  the  older  civilization,  Egyptian  or  Chinese.  It  is 
unquestionably  true  that  these  two  are  the  original  fountains 
from  which  spring  the  present  civilization.  The  Egyptian  civili- 
zation combined  with  the  Jewish  and  Assyrian  "Ethos,"  or 
ethics,  made  a  strong  stream  which  ran  toward  Greece,  which 
was  deepened  by  the  Romans,  broadened  by  the  Germans  and 
French,  and  lengthened  by  the  Anglo-Saxons.  The  old  Chinese 
civilization,  influenced  by  the  "Ethos,"  or  ethics,  of  India,  pre- 
vailing in  Siam  and  in  the  Malay  Peninsula,  produced  another 
stream.  This,  for  the  sake  of  convenience,  you  might  call  the 
Oriental  stream  of  civilization.  The  former  stream  of  civiliza- 
tion is  based  upon  Individualism,  and  the  latter  on  Paternalism, 
and  no  doubt  there  is  some  difference  between  the  two.  The 
nations  which  have  been  fed  by  one  stream  of  civilization 
naturally  would  not  understand,  without  difficulty,  the  nations 
which  belonged  to  the  other  stream  of  civilization.  For,  although 
there  is  an  underlying  principle  of  unity  in  the  matter  of  morals 
and  ideals,  we  have  developed  different  methods  and  degrees 

101 


of  interpretation  and  practice.  We  have  been  blinded  by 
different  customs,  habits  and  institutions,  emphasizing  the 
differences  between  the  East  and  the  West  and  by  exerting  little 
effort  to  bring  out  the  idea  of  similarity  in  essentials  between 
them. 

Take  a  concrete  example:  Charity,  love,  generosity,  sin- 
cerity, politeness,  modesty,  and  many  other  virtues  are  not  any 
more  Occidental  than  Oriental.  While  we  have  different  methods 
and  degrees  of  practicing  and  expressing  them,  the  so-called 
"differences"  between  the  East  and  the  West,  yet  they  are  mostly 
in  non-essentials,  such  as  manners,  habits  and  customs.  Person- 
ally, I  would  just  as  soon  have  my  sister  be  seen  on  the  street 
in  bare  feet,  without  any  shoes,  as  to  be  seen  in  low-necked 
gowns  or  peek-a-boo  waists.  We  have  some  differences,  no 
doubt,  but  close  observation  reveals  the  fact  that  the  greatest 
differences  between  the  East  and  the  West  lie  in  their  similarity. 

3.  If  there  is  any  misunderstanding  of  Japan  in  America 
we  cannot  altogether  blame  America  for  it.  For  until  about 
sixty  years  ago  we  did  not  care  to  know  you  or  have  you  know 
us.  On  the  other  hand,  however,  I  often  wonder  to  what  extent 
the  West  really  is  endeavoring  to  understand  us.  Of  course 
we  admit  that  the  West  taught  us  many  a  lesson,  and  there  is 
more  necessity  of  the  East  trying  to  understand  the  West.  But 
perhaps  I  am  not  mistaken  if  I  say,  inasmuch  as  there  is  one 
American  who  can  read  or  speak  Japanese,  there  are  at  least 
a  hundred  Japanese  who  can  read  and  speak  English. 

(a)  In  the  early  stage  the  task  of  introducing  and  inter- 
preting the  East  has  been  done  by  Westerners,  who  have  not 
had  fair  opportunities  to  appreciate  the  history,  institutions  and 
traditions  of  Japan  or  China. 

(b)  The  influx  of  Japanese  laborers  in  the  early  stage  of 
Japanese  immigration  served  as  an  extremely  poor  introduction 
of  Japan  to  America. 

(c)  In  addition,  there  came  the  unparalleled  rapid  progress 
of  Japan,  which  was  so  difficult  for  the  Westerners  to  fathom. 
Some  of  then?  naturally  sought  an  explanation  by  mystifying 
Japan. 

4.  Then  there  is  a  psychological  aspect.  We  are  all 
psychological  beings ;  so  are  nations.  For  instance,  in  older 
countries  they  used  to  respect  authorities,  but  here  they  do  not. 

102 


Why?  Because  every  one  of  you  with  the  almighty  ballot  is  a 
king.  In  California  women  are  "kings,"  too.  However,  this  is 
the  universal  psychological  truth  that,  whether  in  the  East  or  in 
the  West,  we  respect,  admire  and  talk  about  one  thing  more  than 
anything  else,  and  that  is  success.  Now  Japan  is  a  successful 
nation  in  the  Far  East,  and  America  in  the  West.  Therefore, 
the  world  has  placed  these  two  nations  as  a  focus  for  respect, 
admiration,  discussion,  criticism  and  comparison.  Naturally 
there  arises  a  great  deal  of  misunderstanding. 

Politicians  understand  this  psychological  phenomenon,  and 
make  use  of  it  to  further  their  ends.  Japanese,  for  example, 
without  any  ballot  in  this  country,  have  been  made  most  con- 
venient subjects  for  notoriety  with  the  least  damage  for  some 
agitators. 

Then  there  is  the  other  psychological  aspect  of  suspicion. 
Sometimes  we  suspect  ourselves.  We  call  that  lack  of  self- 
confidence.  But  we  suspect  other  people  worse  than  that, 
especially  as  to  their  intentions;  and,  worst  of  all,  other  nation- 
alities. When  we  suspect  we  do  not  expect  the  best  things  to 
happen,  but  usually  the  worst.  And  when  we  suspect  for  the 
worst,  we  usually  expect  some  kind  of  trouble.  The  worst  of 
international  relations  is  war.  So  when  we  expect  the  worst  in 
international  questions  we  expect  war  and  talk  about  it  and 
prepare  for  it.  If  the  worst  does  not  come  in  time,  sometimes 
we  make  excuse  to  bring  it  on.  That  is  exactly  what  they  have 
done  in  Europe.  When  American  activities  in  the  Philippines 
were  going  on  there  were  some  Japanese  who  suspected  that 
America  was  trying  to  secure  a  foothold  in  China  right  across 
from  Formosa.  Then  when  there  was  a  party  of  Japanese 
fishermen  down  in  lower  California,  seeking  to  find  out  whether 
they  could  fish  sardines  or  catch  oysters,  there  was  a  gentleman 
away  yonder  in  Massachusetts,  a  senator  and  statesman,  who 
feared  and  suspected,  and  introduced  a  resolution  in  the  digni- 
fied assembly  of  the  Senate,  saying  that  Japan  was  trying  to 
get  a  naval  base  near  Magdalena  Bay. 

But  encouragement  arises  from  the  fact  that,  in  spite  of 
these  causes  for  misunderstanding,  the  world  is  getting  smaller 
and  smaller,  and  the  East  and  the  West  are  beginning  to  under- 
stand each  other  better,  and  America  and  Japan  are  getting 
closer  together.  This  is  true  in  respect  of  institutions,  habits 
and  customs. 

103 


Financially  speaking,  Paterson,  New  Jersey,  where  the  silk 
factories  are,  and  Fukushima,  Japan,  where  raw  silk  is  produced, 
are  closer  to  each  other  than  San  Francisco  is  to  Oakland.  For 
when  they  close  the  factories  at  Paterson  some  people  in 
Fukushima  may  go  hungry  the  next  day.  If  we  stop  buying 
American  machinery  some  factory  hands  in  New  York  will 
lose  their  jobs.  In  other  words,  we  are  beginning  to  think 
alike,  act  alike  and  feel  alike. 

And  yet  there  are  some  people  who  are  so  blinded  with 
the  differences  and  obstacles  they  do  not  realize  the  general 
trend  of  the  world's  progress,  or  realize  the  essential  unity  of 
the  civilizations  of  the  world.  And  there  are  those  who  are 
basing  the  solution  of  an  international  problem  on  suspicion  and 
misunderstanding. 

Two  years  ago  the  state  legislature  of  California  gave  the 
best  illustration  of  a  legislation  based  on  misunderstanding  when 
they  were  debating  on  the  anti-alien  land  law.  Please  do  not 
misunderstand  me.  I  am  not  saying  whether  it  was  good  or 
bad,  right  or  wrong,  but  I  do  think  that  there  was  a  great 
deal  of  misunderstanding  in  that  enactment.  During  the  dis- 
cussion there  seemed  to  have  been  a  great  deal  of  pro  and  con. 
For  instance,  some  would  say:  "We  object  to  the  Japanese 
owning  land  because  they  work  so  cheaply;  they  will  lower  the 
standard  of  wages  in  this  country." 

That  is  a  good  argument. 

On  the  other  hand,  some  said :  "The  Japanese  used  to 
work  very  cheaply,  but  they  don't  now.  They  know  there  is  a 
scarcity  of  labor  on  this  coast.  To-day  our  objection  is  that 
the  Japanese  demand  big  wages." 

Again,  some  would  say :  "The  trouble  we  have  is  Japanese 
make  money,  save  that  money  and  send  it  to  Japan.  They  don't 
help  to  develop  this  country  at  all."  Still  others  insisted :  "We 
object  to  the  Japanese  because  they  work  so  hard,  make  money 
and  save  money;  but  the  trouble  is  they  spend  that  money  in 
this  country,  invest  it  in  this  country,  and  buy  up  all  the  land 
in  California." 

So  you  see  how  contradictory  these  so-called  arguments 
are.  I  don't  say  which  is  right  or  which  is  wrong,  but  con- 
tradictory anyhow.  I  say  there  is  a  great  deal  of  misunderstand- 
ing, but  we  are  peculiar  beings.     Man  is  a  most  inconsistent 

104 


animal.  We  use  very  illogical  arguments,  enjoy  them,  and  call 
ourselves  wise  afterwards.  In  San  Francisco  we  say:  "We 
have  a  fine  climate ;  so  warm  in  winter  we  don't  need  overcoats, 
but  so  cool  in  summer  we  must  have  them."  I  am  wondering 
if  the  alien  land  law  was  not  based  on  the  same  kind  of 
reasoning. 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  there  is  no  misunderstanding  of 
the  West  in  Japan,  but  this  I  can  say  without  very  much  hestita- 
tion,  that  Japan  does  understand  America  a  little  better  than 
America  understands  Japan.  Tell  me  how  many  Americans 
there  are  in  this  very  city,  the  gateway  to  the  Orient,  who  can 
read,  write  or  speak  either  Chinese  or  Japanese. 

Again:  the  Japan  of  to-day  is  trying  to  understand  the 
West,  especially  the  English-speaking  countries.  The  study  of 
the  English  language  is  required  in  almost  every  high  school 
and  college  of  Japan.  During  my  visit  to  that  country  three 
years  ago  I  was  asked  to  speak  thirty  times — ten  times  in 
Japanese  and  twenty  times  in  English  (perhaps  it  was  not 
because  I  spoke  good  English,  but  because  I  spoke  very  poor 
Japanese).  At  any  rate,  this  indicates  the  desire  on  the  part  of 
young  Japan  to  know  and  understand  the  West.  My  earnest 
and  sincere  desire  and  appeal  to  the  West,  to  America,  and 
especially  to  California,  is  that  they  might  at  least  try  to  under- 
stand the  East,  and  especially  Japan,  better. 

Are  you  a  San  Franciscan?  You  cannot  expect  to  make 
your  city  the  New  York  of  the  Pacific  by  forgetting  or  neglect- 
ing your  neighbors  on  the  other  side  of  the  Pacific  Ocean.  Are 
you  a  Californian?  You  can  never  solve  your  question  with 
the  Orientals  if  you  base  the  solution  of  it  on  misunderstanding 
or  prejudice.  Are  you  an  American?  You  can  never  have 
international  peace  without  ridding  yourself  of  international 
suspicion  and  jealousy  by  displacing  them  with  mutual  trust 
and  confidence,  and  by  displacing  inter-racial  criticism  and  con- 
tempt with  appreciation  and  co-operation. 

Lovers  of  peace  and  reorganizers  of  the  world,  let  us  start 
anew,  if  necessary,  from  that  same  old  proposition :  "In 
essentials  we  are  all  alike,  though  we  may  differ  in  non- 
essentials." With  this  attitude  of  heart,  let  us  hope,  let  us 
strive,  and,  as  the  first  step,  let  us  try  to  know  our  neighbors — 
try  to  understand  them  and  appreciate  them. 

105 


Should  there  be  Military  Training  in  Public  Schools? 

Louis  P.  Lochner 

NOT  long  ago,  in  an  inspection  tour  of  the  camps  of  interned 
British,  French,  German  and  Belgian  soldiers  that  dot  the 
map  of  little  Holland,  I  chanced  to  dine  with  an  English 
officer,  about  whose  daring  feats  as  aviator  I  had  read  in  Ameri- 
can newspapers  last  November.  We  were  discussing  political 
ideals  and  institutions  as  affected  by  the  world  war,  and  my 
British  friend  was  vociferous  in  proclaiming  how  the  Allies 
would  crush  Prussian  militarism.  "The  world  will  never  be  a 
safe  place  to  live  in,"  he  said,  "until  we  have  beaten  the  Germans 
to  their  knees.  There  is  not  a  Britisher  worthy  of  the  name 
but  will  shed  his  last  drop  of  blood  for  the  liberation  of  Europe 
from  Kaiserism." 

This  was  familiar  language  to  me.  I  had  heard  it  in  France 
at  the  outbreak  of  the  war  a  year  ago,  when  even  the  anti- 
militarist  Socialists  of  the  grande  repuhliqiie  vied  with  the  most 
conservative  bourbons  in  denouncing  German  imperialism  as  the 
greatest  foe  of  peace,  and  their  official  organs  admonished  the 
"comrades"  to  make  every  sacrifice,  even  to  the  abandonment  of 
their  peace  principles,  to  secure  its  dethronement. 

I  had  heard  it  again  and  again  in  this  country,  notably  in 
the  language  of  men  like  Charles  M.  Schwab,  whose  company 
is  being  so  visibly  blessed  for  assisting  in  overthrowing  German 
militarism  that  Bethlehem  steel  shares  stand  at  300,  and  are 
soaring  higher  daily! 

I  was  then  not  surprised  at  my  English  friend's  lofty  tone. 
But  I  was  not  quite  prepared  for  what  followed.  I  ventured  the 
opinion  that  I  was  not  at  all  sure  but  that  the  Allies,  in  the 
process  of  wiping  out  German  militarism,  were  prone  to  lose 
sight  of  their  own  democratic  ideals.  He  turned  to  me  sharply, 
and  his  fist  came  down  with  a  bang  as  he  said  with  warmth 
and  fervor: 

"Yes,  thank  God,  this  war  will  end  democracy  in  England. 
Socialism,  trades-unionism,  syndicalism,  and  all  idle  prattle  about 
liberty  and  dem.ocracy  will  be  a  thing  of  the  past  when  once  we 

106 


get  conscription.  The  state  has  been  altogether  too  lenient  with 
all  these  cranks  and  faddists.  But  there  will  not  be  a  ghost  of 
a  show  for  them  after  the  war." 

My  British  friend  was  not  far  from  right  in  this  prediction. 
Jane  Addams,  returning  from  an  investigation  of  European  con- 
ditions, which  has  fallen,  perhaps,  to  no  other  person  to  make, 
tells  us : 

"The  longer  the  war  runs  on,  the  more  the  military  parties 
are  being  established  as  censors  of  the  press,  and  in  all  sorts  of 
other  places  which  they  ordinarily  do  not  occupy;  the  longer 
the  war  goes  on,  the  more  the  military  power  is  breaking  down 
all  the  safeguards  of  civil  life  and  civil  government,  and  con- 
sequently the  harder  will  it  be  for  civil  life,  and  for  the  rights  of 
civil  life,  to  re-establish  themselves  over  the  rights  and  powers 
of  the  military." 

We  find,  then,  this  curious  anomaly :  The  most  stupendous 
war  in  history,  if  we  are  to  accept  the  view  most  current  in 
America,  is  being  fought  in  the  name  of  democracy  and  avowedly 
in  opposition  to  militarism;  a  "war  to  end  war"  is  the  phrase 
applied  by  Ally  and  Teuton  alike,  yet  within  the  warring 
countries  democracy  is  being  more  and  more  overshadowed  by 
the  very  militarism  which  each  power  is  seeking  to  destroy  in 
the  other.  The  Allies,  to  crush  German  land-militarism,  are 
raising  the  most  gigantic  armies  ever  assembled,  and  are  super- 
seding civil  law  by  martial  law  in  their  respective  countries 
(and  martial  law,  as  Dr.  Jordan  has  reminded  us,  is  no  law  at 
all ;  only  the  will  of  the  military  officer)  ;  the  Germans,  to  destroy 
British  sea-militarism,  are  building  so  many  submarines  and 
battleships  that,  should  they  be  victorious  and  smash  the  English 
navy,  their  own  marine  equipment  for  war  would  be  quite  as 
much  of  a  menace  to  the  freedom  of  the  seas  as  they  deemed 
England's  to  be. 

In  other  words,  each  country,  in  seeking  to  destroy  the 
military  ideal  in  the  other,  becomes  virtually  conquered  by  that 
very  ideal  in  the  process.  As  an  Englishman  put  it  to  Dr. 
Jordan  in  London  last  fall :  "I  fear  the  conquest  by  the  Prussian 
spirit  more  than  the  conquest  by  her  armies."  More  than  that. 
So  internationalized  is  human  society  to-day,  that  a  wave  of 
reaction  sweeping  over  one  part  of  the  human  race  is  bound  to 
touch  the  whole  human  family.    Hence  this  hysteria  in  America. 

107 


Hence  in  this  running  to  cover,  for  "protection"  that  doesn't 
protect,  for  "insurance"  that  doesn't  insure,  for  increased  arma- 
ments and  additional  naval  bases,  with  apparently  no  policy  in 
mind  except  to  secure  "as  much  as  the  traffic  will  bear."  We, 
too,  are  in  grave  danger  of  becoming  converts  to  the  philosophy 
of  force. 

There  you  have  the  background  for  the  efforts  now  under 
way  to  establish  military  training  in  our  public  schools.  It  is 
part  and  parcel  of  this  general  swinging  back  of  the  pendulum 
to  the  ideals  of  a  century  in  which  the  gun-patriots  would  not 
have  commanded  nearly  as  much  notoriety  as  now.  Already  the 
legislatures  of  Ohio  and  Massachusetts  have  been  stampeded  into 
the  appointment  of  commissions  to  consider  the  advisability  or 
feasibility  of  introducing  such  military  training  into  the  educa- 
tional systems  of  their  commonwealths.  Members  of  the  Board 
of  Education  of  New  York  City,  have  been  repeatedly 
approached  to  introduce  such  training.  Providence,  R.  I.,  has 
even  voted  a  definite  budget  for  military  instruction  in  its 
schools,  thereby  out-Prussianizing  Prussia,  for  even  in  mili- 
taristic Prussia,  as  Dr.  Jordan  reminded  us  yesterday,  they  have 
not  sunk  to  the  level  of  teaching  mere  children  how  to  kill.  A 
determined  efifort  will  be  made  in  other  states  and  communities 
to  secure  similar  action,  unless  we  can  recover  our  sanity  and 
again  face  forward  instead  of  backward.  Indeed,  this  very 
morning  a  news  item  dated  New  York  tells  us  that  "Application 
was  made  to-day  for  incorporation  of  the  National  School  Camp 
Association."  The  object  of  the  association  is  to  issue  a  call  fof 
one  million  school  boys  to  take  a  course  in  military  training. 
By  a  queer  irony  of  fate,  I  notice,  from  the  same  news  item, 
that  one  of  the  incorporators  is  "Ernest  K.  Coulter,  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Society  for  the  Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Children." 

Now  I  do  not  want  to  take  your  time  to  present  certain 
aspects  of  the  question  that  have  been  dealt  with  in  earlier  peace 
conferences  and  before  various  educational  bodies.  For  instance, 
the  militarist  argument,  that  military  training  makes  for  physical 
development  and  improvement,  has  been  torn  to  tatters  in 
Superintendent  Schaefifer's  brilliant  address  before  the  Depart- 
ment of  Superintendence  of  the  N.  E.  A.  last  February. 
"Investigations  have  shown  the  contrary  to  be  true,"  is  his  con- 
clusion  after   quoting   a   number   of   medical    authorities.      He 

108 


thereby  corroborates  what,  several  years  previously,  such  edu- 
cators as  Charles  W.  Eliot,  Samuel  T,  Button,  Mary  E.  Woolley, 
and  others  asserted  in  response  to  an  inquiry  conducted  by  the 
Peace  Association  of  Friends  of  Philadelphia. 

Nor  would  I  spend  much  time  going  into  the  moral  case 
against  military  training  in  public  schools.  To  quote  Superin- 
tendent Schaeffer  again:  "Military  drill  seeks  to  develop 
unquestioning  obedience,  so  that  the  soldier  will  move  forward 
in  the  face  of  danger  and  even  certain  death,  but  it  does  not 
develop  obedience  to  conscience,  to  a  sense  of  right,  and  to  the 
divine  imperative  of  duty."  Or,  as  the  British  investigators  put 
it,  "In  so  far  as  the  'soldierly  spirit'  implies  implicit  obedience  to 
superiors,  under  all  circumstances,  without  the  guiding  of 
individual  conscience  and  under  fear  of  punishment,  it  is  wholly 
anti-educational,  repressing  the  personality  instead  of  'leading  it 
out,'  and  stultifying  initiative."  That  Dr.  Schaeffer  is  not  alone 
is  attested  by  the  signed  statements  to  practically  the  same  effect 
which  I  have  seen  from  the  pens  of  Charles  Zueblin,  Isaac 
Sharpless,  John  Dewey,  E.  Adair  Impey  and  other  educators, 
not  to  mention  publicists  like  John  W.  Foster  or  Charles  E. 
Hughes. 

It  is  interesting  in  this  connection  to  note  that  in  Australia,^ 
the  population  of  which  is  only  about  twice  that  of  the  State  of 
California,  and  where  compulsory  military  training  was  intro- 
duced in  the  public  schools,  23,000  prosecutions  of  children  for 
neglect  to  comply  with  the  law  took  place  within  two  and  one- 
half  years  after  its  adoption.  These  lads  were  boys  in  their 
tender  years,  and  it  is  not  hard  to  see  what  a  bad  moral  effect 
these  prosecutions  must  have  had.  An  open  spirit  of  rebellion 
to  the  Government  was  fostered.  Certainly  no  one  will  claim 
that  the  Australian  experiment  has  made  for  better  morals 
among  the  school  children. 

These  two  aspects — the  physical  and  moral — must  be 
apparent  to  any  one  who  seriously  reflects  upon  the  problem. 
It  is  not  on  these  self-evident  objections  that  I  wish  to  place  the 
emphasis.  Rather  would  I  indict  the  introduction  of  military 
training  on  two  grounds : 

First,  it  would  be  a  confession  that  we  are  about  to  abandon 
the  American  ideal  of  democracy  and  to  substitute  for  it  what 
has  become  popularly  known  as  "Prussianism,"  or  the  military 
ideal. 

109 


Second,  since  no  nation  lives  unto  itselt,  a  radical  departure 
from  our  traditional  military  policy,  such  as  the  introducton  of 
preparation  for  war  in  our  school  curricula  would  involve,  would 
mean  a  radical  rearrangement  and  re-alignment  of  all  the  great 
powers,  and  might  easily  set  in  motion  a  wave  of  militarism 
scarcely  less  calamitous  than  the  great  war  itself. 

I. 

There  are,  I  suppose,  as  many  definitions  of  what  the  Ameri- 
can ideal  of  democracy  is,  as  there  are  theories  about  the  tariff. 
Most  people  are  agreed,  however,  that  it  is  the  very  opposite  of 
autocracy  and  militarism.  Ask  any  one  of  the  many  thousands 
upon  thousands  of  immigrants  from  military-ridden  Europe  as* 
to  why  he  came  to  this  land  of  opportunity,  and  he  will  tell  you, 
among  other  things,  that  it  was  because  he  "did  not  raise  his  boy 
to  be  a  soldier" ;  because  to  him  America  meant  the  land  of 
individual  liberty,  the  "land  of  the  free  and  the  home  of  the 
brave" ;  because  he  wants  his  progeny  to  grow  up  free  from  the 
crushing  burdens  of  military  service  and  war  taxes  that  so  stifled 
individual  initiative  in  the  old  country. 

Ask  the  foreign  observer  who  comes  to  our  shores  to  study 
our  life  and  our  ideals  what  it  is  that  distinguishes  us  from  the 
Europeans,  and  he  will  always  enumerate,  among  other  points, 
the  absence  of  the  military.  I  recall  an  incident  that  occurred 
in  Washington  two  years  ago.  Some  two  hundred  foreign 
students,  representing  thirty  different  countries,  had  gathered 
at  Cornell  University,  in  an  international  congress,  to  deliberate 
upon  problems  common  to  students  of  all  nationalities,  and  to 
advance  the  ideal  of  universal  brotherhood.  From  Ithaca  they 
traveled  to  Buffalo,  to  Niagara  Falls,  to  Philadelphia,  to  New 
York,  to  Baltimore,  to  Annapolis,  and  finally  to  Washington. 
I  was  sitting  in  a  cafe  one  noon  with  several  Italian  students, 
when  suddenly  one  of  them  sprang  up  excitedly  and  pointed  out 
of  the  window.  "At  last  I  see  an  American  soldier,"  he  said. 
"I  had  often  heard  in  Italy  that  you  are  a  non-military  nation, 
but  I  never  dreamed  that  I  would  travel  through  five  of  your 
largest  cities  before  meeting  a  soldier." 

George  Washington,  in  his  famous  "Farewell"  address, 
emphasized  the  incompatibility  of  militarism  and  democracy: 
"Overgrown  military  establishments  are,  under  any  form  of 
government,  inauspicious  to  liberty,  and  are  to  be  regarded  as 

110 


particularly  hostile  to  republican  liberty."  No  one  can  question 
that  these  establishments  in  every  nation  to-day  (our  own 
included)  are  overgrown;  that  is,  swollen  beyond  all  reasonable 
proportions  through  fear  or  misapprehension  of  others. 

In  short,  the  American  ideal,  in  so  far  as  it  is  capable  of 
definition,  is  one  of  anti-militarism. 

Contrast  with  that,  the  Prussian  ideal — the  ideal  of  militar- 
ism. I  need  not  quote  Bernhardi,  or  Treitschke,  or  Keim  in 
definition  of  it.  We  need  not  even  go  beyond  our  own  shores 
to  find  most  vigorous  exponents  of  it.  In  this  very  State  of 
California,  and,  indeed,  in  this  very  neighborhood,  Theodore 
Roosevelt,  after  denouncing  the  contemptible  ideals  of  the 
German  military  caste,  burst  into  this  epigrammatic  utterance: 
"Any  man  who  says,  'I  did  not  raise  my  boy  to  be  a  soldier,' 
isn't  fit  for  citizenship."  And  in  a  recent  article  of  his  he  puts 
it  thus :  "  'I  did  not  raise  my  boy  to  be  a  soldier'  is  on  the  same 
moral  level  with  saying,  'I  did  not  raise  my  girl  to  be  a  mother.'  " 

Here,  then,  are  the  two  ideals :  The  so-called  Prussian 
ideal,  which  makes  citizenship  and  soldiery  synonymous;  the 
•)ther,  the  democratic  ideal,  which  exalts  pacifism  as  the  highest 
lorm  of  patriotism,  and  which  regards  the  work  of  the  soldier 
'4S  the  very  last  resort  after  the  failure  of  law  and  justice. 

There  is  no  doubt  as  to  which  ideal  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
American  people  favor.  The  very  fact  that  the  sympathies  of 
the  United  States,  broadly  speaking,  are  on  the  side  of  the  Allies 
because,  rightly  or  wrongly,  they  see  in  a  German  victory  the 
triumph  of  the  military  ideal — shows  how  devoted  we  are  to 
the  democratic,  pacific  ideal.  And  even  those  in  our  country 
who  sympathize  with  the  Teutonic  powers  in  this  struggle, 
do  it  because  they  believe  that  a  sweeping  German  victory  will 
rid  the  Fatherland  once  for  all  from  the  dangers  surrounding 
her,  and,  in  the  words  of  Congressman  Barthold,  "will  enable 
Germany  to  disband  her  army  and  abolish  conscription  at  the 
close  of  the  war.'' 

If,  then,  we  all  are  taking  sides  one  way  or  the  other,  our 
technical  neutrality  notwithstanding,  because  we  want  to  see 
the  world  freed  from  the  military  ideal,  is  it  not  just  a  little 
bit  inconsistent,  to  say  the  least,  to  want  to  enthrone  that  ideal 
in  the  very  cradle  of  liberty,  the  American  public  school?  Are 
we  to  be  regarded  as  sincere  if  we  ourselves  do  not  practice  what 

111 


we  preach?     If  Prussianism  is  an  undesirable  thing,  then  why 
instill  it  in  the  hearts  of  our  youth? 

It  is  a  current  statement  in  the  trenches  of  Europe  that 
this  is  really  an  old  men's  war — that  the  splendid  young  men 
of  this  generation  are  forced  to  fight  for  ideals  of  an  older 
generation,  for  ideals  which  they  no  longer  share.  John  R. 
Mott,  Jane  Addams,  and  others  who  have  been  abroad,  tell 
us  that  the  young  men  vow  that  when  this  war  is  over  they  will 
see  to  it  that  their  new  ideals  of  international  co-operation 
supersede  these  older  notions.  Are  we  to  be  more  backward 
than  the  men  in  the  trenches?  While  Europe  is  bitterly  re- 
gretting that  it  ever  succumbed  to  the  military  ideal,  and  is 
pathetically  trying  to  shift  the  blame  for  this  war  one  upon 
the  other,  shall  we  adopt  that  out-worn  ideal  in  our  presumably 
up-to-date  educational  system  by  installing  military  training? 
Even  the  Prussian  educational  system  does  not  provide  for  mili- 
tary instruction  in  the  common  schools.  Shall  we  outdo 
Prussia  ? 

Let  us  not  be  misled  by  those  who  try  to  make  out  how 
nnocent  the  idea  of  military  training  is.  It  is  one  of  the  un- 
fortunate truisms  that  militarism  is  like  that  popular  confec- 
ion  known  as  "cracker jack,"  the  motto  of  which  is,  "The  more 
jou  eat,  the  more  you  want."  It  differs  only  in  this,  that  even 
'■he  most  ravenous  of  youngsters  will  finally  stop  wanting 
'.rackerjack,  while  I  have  yet  to  find  the  militarist  who  is  satis- 
fied with  the  state  of  preparedness  at  any  given  point.  Ramsay 
iVlacdonald  well  pointed  out  the  dangers  of  militarism  in  a 
recent  speech  in  Birmingham.  Said  the  distinguished  member 
of  Parliament : 

"Great  Britain  is  nearer  militarism  than  ever  it  has  been  in  its 
existence.  Of  course,  people  say  it  is  only  temporary,  but  let  them 
not  make  any  mistake  about  that.  When  they  go  into  militarism  for 
temporary  purposes  they  have  to  abandon  the  view  which  is  at  war 
with  militarism.  If  they  submit  to  conscription  in  any  shape  or  form 
now  the  arguments  in  favor  of  conscription  will  continue  after  peace." 

And  so  it  will  be  with  the  idea  of  military  training  in  pub- 
lic schools.  At  first  it  will  be  a  voluntary  matter  for  the  chil- 
dren. Then  it  will  be  compulsory.  Then  it  will  be  extended  into 
the  high  schools,  the  colleges  and  the  universities  in  ever  in- 
creasing measure.    Soon  it  will  appear  advisable  that  the  young 

112 


men  who  are  unable  to  go  beyond  the  grammar  school  be  given 
ihe  same  opportunity  for  "patriotic"  service  that  their  more 
fortunate  comrades  have  at  the  high  school  or  college,  and 
workingmen's  and  businessmen's  military  training  will  be  pro- 
vided. Do  you  not  see  whither  we  shall  then  be  drifting, 
whither,  in  fact,  we  are  already  drifting?  A  few  legislators  con- 
trolled by  gun  makers  and  munitions  manufacturers,  a  few  big 
papers  subsidized  or  at  least  swayed  by  the  same  influences, 
a  potential  enemy  dangled  long  enough  before  our  eyes — and 
conscription  is  only  a  question  of  time.  In  fact,  as  powerful 
a  paper  as  the  Chicago  Tribune  is  openly  urging  it.  And  once 
conscription  is  introduced — well,  I  let  General  Leonard  Wood 
speak.  Said  the  General  in  the  course  of  one  of  his  recent  at- 
tempts to  militarize  our  colleges  and  universities,  "If  we  had 
conscription  in  this  country,  it  would  stop  all  this  pacifist's  talk 
in  twenty-four  hours." 

II. 

But  perhaps  I  am  seeing  things  in  too  pessimistic  a  light. 
Supposing  military  training  in  public  schools  were  an  unquali- 
fied blessing  to  the  youngsters  taking  it.  I  would  still  oppose 
it,  particularly  at  this  time  of  international  unrest.  In  our 
modern  state  of  interdependence,  no  nation  any  longer  lives 
unto  itself.  Whatever  is  said  or  thought  or  done  in  one  part 
of  the  universe,  becomes  part  of  the  world  thought  or  the  world 
mind.  Even  war  among  so-called  civilized  nations  is  no  longer 
possible  between  two  isolated  countries,  but,  as  we  now  learn 
by  horrible  example,  has  become  so  internationalized  as  to  draw 
almost  a  dozen  countries  into  the  holocaust. 

It  follows  that  any  new  governmental  policy,  especially 
a  military  one,  introduced  in  one  country  is  bound  to  be  felt 
throughout  the  world.  We  have  abundant  proof  that  this  is 
true.  When  our  fleet  sailed  around  the  world  to  show  everybody 
we  could  "lick  them  to  a  frazzle,"  it  became  responsible  for  the 
inflated  naval  programs  of  several  South  American  sister  repub- 
lics. Our  huge  military  appropriations  make  similar  appropria- 
tions in  Japan  almost  inevitable — and  Japan  has  no  money  to 
pay  for  them;  only  debt.  When  the  German  Emperor,  years 
ago,  uttered  his  famous  "Unsere  Zukunft  liegt  auf  dem  Wasser" 
("our  future  lies  on  the  water"),  he  brought  about  an  almost 
revolutionary  re-alignment  of  the  European  powers,  and  soon 


113 


converted  the  traditional  enmity  between  France  and  England 
into  friendship.  When  France,  two  years  ago,  in  "self-defense" 
against  outside  threats  extended  her  military  conscription  period 
from  two  to  three  years,  she  drew  out  an  instant  response  from 
Germany  in  that  that  country  levied  a  heavy  income  tax  upon 
her  rich  people,  so  as  to  swell  her  "defensive"  war  chest.  When 
Russia  showed  special  signs  of  activity  in  the  Baltic  region,  the 
Swedish  people  implored  their  king  to  increase  the  armaments 
of  their  country.  And  so  on.  The  military  program  of  one 
country  is  invariably  bound  up  with  that  of  the  whole  civilized 
world. 

Anyone  with  any  imagination  whatever,  can  foresee  what 
would  happen  if  the  most  cherished  shrine  of  liberty  and  democ- 
racy, the  American  schoolhouse,  were  to  become  infested  by 
the  military  ideal.  The  world,  already  sorely  shaken  in  its  faith 
in  the  peace  ideal,  would  see  its  last  ray  of  hope  disappearing. 
A  wave  of  militarism,  scarcely  less  calamitous  in  its  potentialities 
than  the  great  war  itself,  would  follow.  The  laborers,  the 
socialists,  the  religionists,  the  men  of  good-will  everyv/here 
who  in  their  respective  countries  have  been  pointing  to  our 
unfortified  frontier  of  three  thousand  eight  hundred  miles  on 
our  northern  boundary,  to  our  arbitration  and  "cooling  ofT" — or 
one  year's  delay — treaties,  to  our  freedom  from  land  militarism, 
and  to  our  comparative  "unpreparedness"  as  living  demonstra- 
tions of  the  better  way,  will  go  down  in  defeat  before  the  jingoes 
when  America,  too,  succumbs  to  the  ideal  of  force. 

Do  we,  as  men  and  women  of  international  goodwill,  want 
to  take  upon  ourselves  the  tremendous  responsibility  of  helping 
our  country  become  a  prime  factor  in  perpetuating  the  system 
that  has  been  the  undoing  of  Europe  ?  Not  if  I  read  aright  the 
history  of  American  democracy,  even  though  all  the  forces  of 
darkness  are  at  work  to  draw  us  ofi  the  path  of  truth  and  light. 

It  is  not  an  easy  task  to  stand  out  boldly  against  the  efforts 
to  drag  patriotism  down  to  the  level  of  the  war  system.  Tt  is, 
to  be  sure,  far  more  popular  to  cry  "preparedness"  and  to  de- 
nounce peace  propaganda  than  it  is  to  remain  sane  and  calm  in 
the  knowledge  that  the  world  will  not  forever  remain  at  sixes 
and  sevens,  but  that  ultimately  the  reaction  must  set  in,  and  a 
period  of  soberness  follow.  To  be  a  pacifist  nowadays  is  to 
incur  the  stigma  of  "moral  flabbiness,"  of  "degeneracy  in  moral 


114 


fibre,"  of  "physical  and  moral  cowardice,"  to  cull  but  a  few 
choice  phrases  from  the  vocabulary  of  those  who  would  rush  us 
into  war. 

But  do  not  let  that  worry  us.  As  a  dear  old  German  profes- 
sor said  to  me  in  Berlin  last  May,  when  we  were  discussing 
the  grave  world  situation :  "Our  time,  too,  is  bound  to  come  de- 
spite all  that  you  see  round  about  us.  And  then  I  look  forward 
to  our  young  men  and  women  from  the  universities,  to  our  teach- 
ers and  educators  to  take  the  lead  in  ushering  in  the  era  of  a 
world  united,  of  co-operation  where  there  is  now  antagonism, 
of  mutual  understanding  and  good  will." 

One  of  our  best  known  Americans  has  said,  "Not  once  in  a 
thousand  years  is  it  possible  to  achieve  anything  worth  achieving 
except  by  labor,  by  effort,  by  serious  purpose,  and  by  willingness 
to  run  risks."  May  the  people  of  good-will  everywhere  not  look 
in  vain  to  the  American  teacher  and  student  to  accept  willingly 
the  risk  of  unpopularity  in  setting  himself  or  herself  like  a  wall 
of  adamant  against  the  attempt  to  militarize  our  priceless 
heritage,  the  free,  liberty-inspiring  public  school. 

I  am  aware  that  in  the  foregoing  I  have  not  proposed  the 
alternative.  I  have  not  advanced  a  constructive  substitute  for 
military  training.  But  it  is  hardly  necessary  for  me  to  do  so. 
The  American  School  Peace  League  is  constantly  keeping  before 
the  teachers  of  America  the  necessity  of  teaching  history  for  a 
new  viewpoint;  of  fostering  the  ideal  that  men-saving  is  far 
more  heroic  and  honorable  than  man-killing;  of  inculcating  a 
patriotism  that  shall  include  the  world ;  of  making  the  children 
international-minded ;  of  bringing  them  to  a  realization  of  the  fact 
that,  as  Dr.  Jordan  has  so  well  stated  it,  "the  great  political  and 
moral  struggle  of  the  next  fifty  years — bloodless  we  hope — will 
not  be  between  nation  and  nation,  but  between  militarism  and 
freedom." 

It  would  be  "carrying  coals  to  Newcastle"  to  attempt  to 
supplement  the  splendid  work  of  this  body.  May  I  not  content 
myself  with  quoting  the  words  of  the  chairman  of  the  New  York 
City  Board  of  Education? 

"From  all  the  treasured  reverence  for  the  past,  a  new  pat- 
riotism should  be  evolved,  a  patriotism,  not  of  death,  but  of  life, 
the  patriotism  of  humanity.  This  patriotism  demands  a  domain 
without   frontiers.     The   commandment,    'Thou    shalt   not   kill,' 

lis 


becomes  a  mandate  to  nations  even  as  to  men — to  black  men  and 
yellow  men  as  well  as  to  white.  It  regards  as  one  great  family 
all  the  children  of  a  living  God.  The  progress  of  the  race,  even 
now,  demands  a  patriotism  not  stirred  by  the  roll  of  the  drum, 
or  thrilled  by  the  sight  of  the  mounted  man.  Its  vision  is  of  the 
playground,  the  park  and  the  school,  clean  streets,  beautiful 
cities,  honest  trade,  wholesome  living.  It  looks  with  disquietude 
upon  social  unrest,  and  enlists  with  fervor  in  the  task  of  its 
solution.  It  seeks  to  ease  the  yoke  upon  the  shoulders  of  toil, 
and  to  lighten  the  burden  on  the  backs  of  the  God-fearing  poor." 


116 


A  Call  of  Old  Glory  for  Heroism 

Eva  Marshall  Shontz 

A  WORLD  crisis  is  upon  us.  America  faces  the  oppor- 
tunity of  the  ages  to  be  a  benefactor  to  the  human  race. 
From  every  quarter  of  the  globe  comes  "a  long  world 
cry,"  for  the  people  of  some  land  to  adopt  and  practise  as  their 
motto  those  immortal  words  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison — "My 
country  is  the  world — My  countrymen  are  all  mankind.''  The 
prophecy  of  Longfellow  never  had  such  a  far-reaching  meaning 
as  to-day: 

"Were  half  the  power  that  fills  the  world  with  terror, 
Were  half  the  wealth  bestowed  on  camps  and  courts. 
Given  to  redeem  the  human  mind  from  error, 
There  were  no  need  of  arsenals  or  forts. 

The  warrior's  name  would  be  a  name  disowned, 
And  every  nation  that  would  lift  again 
Its  hand  against  another,  on  its  forehead, 
Would  wear  for  evermore  the  mark  of  Cain." 

The  question  of  war  can  be  settled  by  the  correct  answer  to 
five  words — Is  it  right  to  murder?  For  "war  is  mechanized 
murder."  Humanity  waits  to  see  whether  our  country  deserves 
the  tributes  paid  to  her  by  President  Wilson.  "America  is  too 
proud  to  fight."  If  she  is  too  proud  to  fight,  then  she  ought 
not  to  prepare  to  fight. 

From  recent  statements  which  should  be  authentic,  we 
learn  that  in  round  numbers  fifty-eight  per  cent  of  the  habitable 
globe  is  swept  by  war.  1,721,000,000  live  on  this  planet; 
976,296,000— over  half— are  at  war.  21,000,000  soldiers  are  en- 
gaged in  the  unparalleled  war  now  raging  in  Europe.  Over 
9,000,000  are  killed,  wounded,  missing  or  held  as  prisoners. 
The  nations  at  war  are  spending  $400,000,000  per  week,  $20, 
000,000,000  per  year.  Such  incomprehensible  figures  and  un- 
believeable  massacres  the  world  has  never  before  faced.  For 
forty  years  Europe  has  been  preparing  for  what  she  now  has 
— ^War — still   there   are  those  who  insist  that  the  only  safety 

117 


for  America  lies  in  following  her  example.  Never  since  Old 
Glory  was  born  has  it  called,  as  it  calls  to-day,  for  heroes 
of  peace  to  avoid  war  by  not  preparing  for  it.  If  we  imitate 
Europe,  what  may  we  expect  to  leave  as  a  heritage  to  future 
generations  but  an  invitation  for  a  veritable  cataclysm  of  death 
and  destruction  in  a  world  war. 

If  liberty-loving  Americans  do  not  speedily  take  a  brave, 
determined  stand  against  militarism,  the  outlook  is  indeed  dark. 
Since  records  have  been  kept,  it  is  estimated  that  over  15,000, 
000,000  men  have  died  through  war.  During  1912  the  nations 
spent  $2,250,000,000  for  military  and  naval  armament  to  be 
prepared,  to  continue  slaughtering  each  other.  Who  carries 
the  great  burden  of  these  war  debts?  The  working  people. 
Expert  authority  says  that  when  the  present  European  war  be- 
gan, 12,000,000  in  England  needed  public  aid  for  a  respectable 
burial.  Her  public  debt  was  three  and  a  half  billion  dollars,  and 
she  was  spending  thirty-five  per  cent  of  her  income,  above 
the  interest  on  her  debt,  for  her  army  and  navy.  Germany  had 
a  debt  of  three-and-a-half  billion,  every  cent  war  debt,  and 
was  spending  over  forty-five  per  cent  of  her  income  on  her  army. 
France  had  a  war  debt  of  $6,000,000,000  and  was  spending  thirty- 
seven  per  cent  of  her  income  preparing  for  war.  Russia  had  a 
debt  of  four-and-three-quarter  billion  dollars  and  was  borrow- 
ing each  year  to  pay  the  $2,000,000  interest  on  it. 

Everywhere  the  masses  are  against  war  and  beg  for  re- 
lief. Surely  the  hour  has  struck  for  all  lovers  of  the  human 
race  to  move  in  one  solid  body  for  the  abolition  of  war. 

Being  armed  has  been  tested  and  failed.  Now  the  opposite 
force  should  be  pursued  at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  Daniel 
A.  Poling,  Christian  Citizenship  Superintendent  of  four  million 
Christian  Endeavorers  says,  "Until  the  men  of  the  world  rise 
up  and  covenant,  I  will  not  kill ;  nations  will  learn  war."  Should 
a  nation  steal?  Should  a  nation  lie?  Should  a  nation  commit 
murder?  When  a  half-a-billion  men  say  "No!"  war  lords  will 
become  impotent,  submarines  obsolete,  and  battle  fields  a  me- 
mory. Is  not  the  time  here  when  Americans  ought  to  lead  the 
nations  in  such  a  covenant — such  heroism?  If  our  mighty  Re- 
public would  thus  lead,  how  long  before  a  World  Parliament? 

There  are  signs  of  hope.  All  over  the  country  many  peo- 
ple honor  the  Quaker,  ]\Ienonite,  Moravian,  and  others  of  similar 

118 


faith  against  war.  While  tremendous  efforts  are  being  made  to 
turn  our  high  schools,  colleges  and  universities  into  military 
training  camps,  some  are  being  stirred,  as  never  before,  against 
war.  William  W.  Welsh,  former  Secretary  of  the  International 
Bureau  of  Students  says,  "There  are  students  in  the  world  who 
would  rather  die  than  go  to  war  and  commit  murder — I  am  one 
of  them."  If  all  college  men  would  have  this  idea  of  patriotism, 
how  long  before  the  forts  and  arsenals  of  the  world  could  be 
turned  into  schools  and  universities?  A  recent  conference  of 
students  from  various  colleges  has  been  held.  An  appeal  was 
made  for  the  anti-enlistment  league.  A  young  man  arose  and, 
in  a  ten-minutes'  speech,  struck  the  highest  note  of  inspiration 
and  enthusiasm  of  the  convention.  His  statement,  "I  am  one 
of  those  who  refuse  to  go  out  and  kill  a  fellow  man,"  struck  a 
responsive  chord  and  sent  a  thrill  of  this  higher  civilization 
through  the  audience. 

Karl  Karsten,  of  German  ancestry,  an  athlete,  six  feet  six 
inches  tall,  and  President  of  the  Collegiate  Anti-Militarism 
League,  leads  a  wonderful  uprising  of  students  in  Columbia  Uni- 
versity against  war. 

Anti-Military  Leagues  are  being  formed  in  many  schools. 
Harvard,  New  York,  Syracuse,  Cornell,  Wisconsin  and  Indiana 
State  Universities  are  among  the  number.  A  telegram  sent  to 
President  Wilson  by  Columbia  students  after  the  Lusitania  sank, 
stating  they  would  do  anything  he  might  ask  except  go  to  war, 
will  some  day  be  recognized  as  one  of  the  greatest  honors  ever 
bestowed  on  Columbia  University. 

This  sentiment  ought  to  spread  rapidly  through  American 
institutions  of  learning,  especially  in  view  of  the  way  it  is  de- 
veloping in  European  schools;  for  this  tragedy  across  the  sea 
is  not  a  young  man's  war,  although  the  rulers  and  older  men 
compel  them  to  murder  each  other. 

Mrs.  WilHam  I.  Thomas  says,  "If  my  sons  had  to  be  sacri- 
ficed to  the  madness  of  war,  I  should  prefer  to  have  them  shot 
for  refusing  to  fight,  rather  than  to  be  marshalled  out  to  murder 
their  fellow  beings."  If  all  mothers  would  be  as  heroic  as  she, 
how  long  before  arbitration  would  supplant  war?  It  is  fitting 
that  earnest  brave  souls  should  thus  blaze  the  way  for  a  new 
civilization,  when  young  men  in  Europe  have  been  driven  to  com- 
mit suicide  in  the  hospital  rather  than  return  to  the  front  and 

119 


kill  a  fellow  man,  and  when  more  than  one  woman  comforts  her- 
self with  the  hope  that  her  dear  one,  killed  in  war,  had  not 
murdered  anyone. 

Again:  Mr.  J.  Campbell  White,  late  of  The  Laymen's 
Misisonary  movement  says,  "The  best  way  to  promote  peace 
is  to  extend  the  sway  of  the  Prince  of  Peace.  Five  hundred 
missionaries  can  be  supported  for  fifteen  years  for  the  cost  of 
one  battleship.  The  present  war  costs  enough  every  sixty  days 
to  evangelize  the  whole  world.  If  America  will  give  as  much 
per  year  to  the  mission  as  the  war  is  costing  each  day,  ($50,000,- 
000),  we  can  reach  with  Christ's  message  of  brotherhood  our 
share  of  the  world  within  twenty-five  years." 

If  the  churches  would  accept  this  challenge  even  at  a  heroic 
sacrifice,  how  long  before  the  battle-flags  would  be  furled.  Was 
there  ever  such  a  call  as  to-day  for  this  kind  of  heroism  when 
the  world  over  so-called  Christian  nations  are  connected  in 
thought  with  murdering  implements  of  war? 

There  is  another  class  of  heroes  for  which  our  flag  pleads — 
heroes  to  battle  with  foes  within  our  borders.  Truly  has  it  been 
said  that  the  following  words  of  Abraham  Lincoln  ought  to  be 
written  upon  our  national  escutcheon, — "All  the  armies  of 
Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa  combined,  with  all  the  treasures  of 
the  earth,  our  own  excepted,  in  their  military  chest,  with  a  Bona- 
parte for  a  commander,  could  not  by  force,  take  a  drink  from  the 
Ohio,  or  make  a  track  on  the  Blue  Ridge,  in  a  trial  of  1,000  years. 
If  destruction  be  our  lot,  we  must  ourselves  be  its  author  and 
finisher.  As  a  nation  of  freemen  we  must  live  through  all  time 
or  die  by  suicide." 

The  question  is :  Shall  we  live,  or  die  by  suicide  ?  Even  as 
we  speak  our  glorious  Republic  is  engaged  in  a  life  and  death 
struggle  with  the  most  terrific  foe  that  ever  shot  at  any  flag  in 
any  age,  the  drink-traffic.  There  are  many  foes — powerful  and 
well-organized — threatening  the  Stars  and  Stripes. 

There  is  one,  however,  who,  like  Saul  of  old,  towering  head 
and  shoulders  above  his  fellows — one  giant  Goliath,  before  whom 
all  the  emissaries  of  Satan  bow  and  make  obeisance,  for  they 
know  he  is  kind.  He  comes  to  the  battle-field  already  a  mighty 
conqueror;  he  comes  with  the  blood  of  his  murdered  millions 
dripping  from  his  scarlet  robes.  He  comes  boasting  of  his  scores 
of  thousand  slain  each  year.    Peace  ?    There  can  be  no  peace  for 

120 


America  or  the  world  until  the  drink  traffic  is  slain.   True,  there 
is  hope  everywhere.     The  death-knell  is  sounding  louder  and 
louder    for    the  entire    diabolical    traffic.      Still    the    appalling 
Armagedon  is  just  ahead.     The  United  States  Government  con- 
tinues   to   be    chief    factor    in    this    murderous    business    with 
$1,400,000,000  spent  yearly  for  drink — the  chief  cause  of  crime. 
Crime  has  increased  until  we  spend  approximately  $6,000,000,000 
annually  in  this  direction.   Lawlessness  reigns  with  appalling  power. 
Now  and  then  the  world  receives  a  nine-day's  shock  by  a  horrible 
climax,  as  in  the  case  of  Leo  Frank,  or  when  scores  of  negroes 
are  lynched  annually  in  various  sections  of  the   country — two 
burned  alive  this  year;  but  the  constant,  ordinary  lawlessness  so 
broadcast  through  drink,  helps  to  pave  the  way  for  these  incredible 
atrocities.     Surely  if  our  flag  could  speak  it  would  plead  like 
angels  trumpet-tongued  for  peace-heroes  to  set  it  free.     There 
have  been  great  heroes  who  have  given  their  lives  in  this  mighty 
cause.    There  are  great  heroes  to-day  whose  lives  are  in  constant 
jeopardy  through  this  terrific  curse.     The  peace  of  the  world 
calls    for    millions    more.      Poor    Europe    presents    a    strange 
spectacle.     Russia,  realizing  the  unendurable  ravages  of  drink 
among  her  soldiers,  prohibits  vodka.     Other  countries  endeavor 
to  stop  the  terrible  havoc  wrought  in  their  armies  by  liquor. 
Still  Miss  Addams,  while  in  Europe,  learned  from  one  reliable 
source  after  another,  of  poor  soldiers  being  given  some  kind  of 
drink  before  engaging  in  bayonet  charges,  to  make  it  possible 
for  them  to  plunge  into  such  unbelievable  slaughter.    Was  there 
ever  a  more  powerful  object  lesson  of  the  horrors  of  the  drink 
traffic?    Was  there  ever  a  more  powerful  object  lesson  of  the 
peace  of  the  world  demanding  its  annihilation? 

Again  Old  Glory  calls  for  heroes.  This  time  it  is  in  be- 
half of  her  starving  millions.  In  this  land  of  the  free  and  the 
home  of  the  brave,  this  land  where  one  thousand  million  ought 
to  be  able  to  live  in  comfort,  this  land  where  the  total  value  of 
this  year's  food  crops  will  be  over  $5,300,000,000,  of  the  millions 
of  working  people — expert  authority  states  that  one  third  are  in 
poverty.  Thirty-five  per  cent  of  the  wives  and  mothers  of  work- 
ing men  are  forced  to  do  hard  work  themselves,  to  help  keep  the 
wolf  from  the  door.  $500  per  year  is  the  income  of  half  the  wage 
earning  fathers.  Nearly  one-half  of  the  women  workers  earn 
less  than  $6  per  week.     Three  or  more  persons  occupy  every 

121 


sleeping  room  in  thirty-seven  per  cent  of  the  workers'  homes. 
Babies  of  the  poor  die  three  times  as  fast  as  those  of  the  rich. 
Nearly  twenty  per  cent  of  the  school  children  of  this  country 
are  underfed  or  under-nourished.  One  out  of  every  twelve  corp- 
ses in  New  York  City  is  buried  in  Potter's  Field.  Still  we 
hear  of  heaping  more  taxes  on  these  millions  of  toilers  to  prepare 
for  war.  Millions  of  people  in  this  country  are  not  living,  but 
existing.  Multitudes  are  packed  in  the  slums  of  our  big  cities 
like  sardines.  Multitudes  of  little  children  in  factory,  shop,  mill 
and  sweat  shop  are,  in  every  way,  starving  to  death  to-day. 
Peace?  There  can  be  no  peace  for  all  these  people  until  the 
problems  of  the  industrial  world  are  solved  by  the  Golden  Rule. 

On  the  other  side  there  are  multitudes  of  heroic  souls 
literally  giving  their  lives  to  bring  relief.  One  of  these  died 
this  year — Professor  Charles  Henderson  of  the  University  of 
Chicago.  He  knew  he  was  risking  his  life.  Under  the  tre- 
mendous burden  he  carried  for  the  poor,  with  scores  of  thousands 
tramping  the  streets  of  Chicago  out  of  work,  his  strength  gave 
way.  One  of  the  most  powerful  of  the  many  great  cartoons  of 
our  daily  press  was  in  regard  to  his  funeral.  The  god  of  Mars 
was  represented  in  his  war  attire  saying,  "A  hero,  and  he  never 
killed  anybody.''  Then  a  beautiful  woman  represents  Chicago, 
laying  wreaths  of  flowers  on  the  grave  of  the  professor.  Over 
it  are  the  words,  "He  died  saving  others." 

And  so  the  forces  for  good  and  the  forces  for  evil  are  being 
lined  up  on  all  of  these  and  many  other  great  problems.  I  am 
thinking  now  of  the  poem  Columbus,  by  Joaquin  Miller.  It  is 
the  story  of  the  great  discoverer,  his  trials,  his  faith,  his  victory : 

They  sailed  and  sailed  as  winds  might  blow, 
Until  at  last  the  blanched  mate  said: 
"Why,  now,  not  even  God  would  know 
Should  I  and  all  my  men  fall  dead. 
These  very  winds  forget  their  way. 
For  God  from  these  dread  scenes  is  gone, 
Now,  speak,  brave  Admiral,  speak  and  say. 
He  said,  "Sail  on!     Sail  on!  and  on!" 

They  sailed,  they  sailed,  then  spoke  the  mate, 
"This  mad  sea  shows  his  teeth  to-night, 
He  curls  his  lip,  he  lies  in  wait. 
With  lifted  teeth,  as  if  to  bite! 

122 


Brave  Admiral,  say  but  one  good  word! 
What  shall  we  do  when  hope  is  gone?" 
The  words  leaped  like  a  leaping  sword, 
"Sail  on!    Sail  on!    Sail  on!  and  on!" 

Then,  pale  and  worn,  he  kept  his  deck 
And  peered  through  darkness,  ah,  that  night. 
Of  all  dark  nights!     And  then  a  speck, — 
A  light!    A  light!    A  light!    A  light! 

It  grew,  a  starlit  flag  unfurled. 
It  grew  to  be  Time's  burst  of  dawn, 
He  gained  a  world;  he  gave  that  world 
Its  grandest  lesson,  "On!     Sail  on!" 

May  these  wonderful  words  inspire  us  all  to  better  answer 
the  call  for  World  Peace. 

America !  Sail  on ! 

Humanity,  with  all  its  hopes,  are  all  with  thee!     Sail  on! 

The  clouds  may  be  black,  oh,  ship  of  state,  but  sail  on! 

You  are  called  to  lead  the  nations  onward  by  new  and  bet- 
ter paths — Sail  on ! 

Thy  enemies  are  powerful.  Sail  on!  Sail  on!  until  you 
become  what  Dr.  Frederick  Lynch  says  in  his  picture  of  a  great 
nation — "an  example  to  all  others,  haven  of  all  oppressed  people, 
champion  of  human  rights  in  all  lands,  missionary  of  light  and 
knowledge,  sciences  and  truth  to  all  backward  races.  Mother  of 
all  childlike  people,  leader  in  all  high  causes." 

Sail  on !  Sail  on !  until,  with  the  Lord's  help,  the  forces  of 
righteousness  conquer;  and  justice,  nTercy,  and  peace  te'ign 
supreme. 

Then  you  can  go  forth,  a  Good  Samaritan  indeed,  to  the 
needy  nations  of  the  world.  Then  you  can  stretch  out  your 
hands  over  all  lands,  and  with  power  pronounce  upon  them  my 
precious  mother's  favorite  benediction,  "The  Lord  bless  thee 
and  give  thee  peace." 


123 


America's  Danger  and  Opportunity 

Lucia  Ames  Mead 

OUR  country  faces  to-day  one  of  the  great  crises  of  its 
history.  Upon  our  decision,  in  large  measure,  hangs  the 
world's  decision  to  advance  or  to  retreat  in  civilization. 
Our  country  is  the  sole  one  of  the  eight  great  Powers  not  now 
engaged  in  destroying  its  own  blood  and  treasure.  It  is  the 
safest  and  richest  country  in  the  world;  has  never  yet  been 
attacked,  but  itself  began  its  three  foreign  wars,  and  has  no 
enemies.  It  is  the  one  to  which  all  nations  now  turn  for  help 
or  for  approval.  Every  nation  at  this  moment  is  striving  to  be 
on  friendly  terms  with  it. 

To-day  our  country  has  set  before  it  two  momentous  choices : 
One  is  to  follow  Mr.  Maxim,  Plattsburg  orators  and  the  Navy 
League,  to  reverse  its  policy,  ignore  its  old  ideals,  and  to  enter 
upon  a  new  course.  This  course  is  based  on  the  doctrine  that  force 
must  rule  in  our  affairs,  that  all  government  is  based  on  force, 
and  that  our  nation's  chief  defense  against  its  chief  dangers  is 
siege-guns,  battleships,  a  million  men  in  arms,  and  rifle  practice 
in  our  schools.  The  course  that  is  proposed  is  mere  servile 
imitation  of  futile,  old-world  methods,  which  have  brought 
Europe  to  the  shambles.  The  men  who  advocate  this  policy 
ignore  the  most  obvious  results  of  the  theories  they  propound. 
They  ignore  the  fact  that  whatever  policy  we  adopt  in  facing  an 
exhausted  Europe  will  be  followed  by  the  Latin  republics  and 
Asia  as  speedily  as  possible.  If  Europe's  exhaustion  brings  us 
new  menace,  as  our  militarists  imply,  then  it  brings  even  more 
menace  to  those  weaker  than  ourselves. 

Our  decision  will  largely  affect  the  decision  of  the  world. 
Upon  our  shoulders  will  rest  responsibility  for  imposing 
suspicion,  terror  and  costly  burden  of  taxation  upon  poorer 
nations,  which  have  looked  to  us  to  lead  toward  that  world 
federation  which  our  own  national  federation  has  so  success- 
fully foreshadowed.  A  wrong  decision  will  not  only  affect  our- 
selves and  this  whole  hemisphere  and  the  Orient,  but  it  will  also 

124 


deter  embittered  Europe  from  adopting  any  other  policy  than 
that  decreed  by  miUtarists. 

Democracy,  the  world  over,  stands  to-day  in  peril.  The 
militarists  of  Europe  are  fast  ousting  civilians  and  assuming 
civic  functions.  A  censored  press  and  cowed  public,  unable  in 
any  warring  country  to  freely  speak  its  mind,  is  accustoming  it- 
self to  unprecedented  governmental  control.  There  is  no 
assurance  that  the  spirit  of  liberty,  for  which  Social-Democrats 
and  labor  parties  stand,  will  have  the  power  to  gain  the 
ascendency. 

"Once  to  every  man  and  nation  comes  the  moment  to  decide, 
In  the  strife  of  Truth  with  Falsehood,  for  the  good  or  evil  side." 

Our  choice  comes  now.  That  money  power  behind  muni- 
tions, which  has  for  years  in  many  countries  largely  influenced 
the  press,  is  working  desperately  to  retain  after  the  war  the 
ascendency  which  this  war  has  given  it.  It  is  a  terrific  power, 
working  through  vicious  moving-picture  films,  through  scare 
headlines  and  every  shrewd  psychological  device  to  hypnotize  the 
reason  and  to  obsess  the  imagination.  When  it  once  gets  its  grip 
upon  the  schools,  as  it  is  trying  to  do  under  the  plea  of  patriot- 
ism, it  may  create  conditions  which  will  compel  the  long,  bloody 
fight  for  democracy  to  be  won  over  again.  This  war  has  revealed 
within  our  midst  men  in  high  position  who  are  condemning 
democracy  because  it  will  not  yield  to  the  militarists'  demands, 
because  it  will  not  fall  into  machine  methods.  The  Prussian 
conception  of  the  state  is  getting  rooted  in  the  minds  of  the  very 
men  who  most  bitterly  condemn  its  obvious  results.  If  we  give 
our  might  toward  increased  reliance  upon  force,  we  may  tip  the 
scale  downward  for  all  humanity  for  generations. 

TWO   COURSES 

If  we,  on  the  other  hand,  make  the  alternative  choice  and 
tip  the  scale  upward,  if  we  put  the  mighty  influence  of  our  rich, 
safe  republic  toward  creating  new  and  more  adequate  defenses 
than  our  physicists  have  invented,  we  shall  be  able  to  inspire  and 
lead  a  war-sick  world.  Let  us  make  no  mistake.  Our  choice  is 
between  two  courses.  We  cannot  successfully  at  the  same  time 
follow  two  contrary  policies.  Years  ago,  in  England,  an 
esteemed  friend  of  mine,  a  man  who  loves  peace,  and  is  a  member 

125 


of  the  Privy  Council,  advised  me  to  waste  no  time  in  criticizing 
the  mad  efforts  of  the  mihtarists  to  increase  unnecessary  arma- 
ments. Of  course,  he  declared,  these  efforts  were  wasteful  and 
vicious  and  discouraging,  but  if  only  peace-workers  would  con- 
fine their  efforts  to  substituting  law  for  war  they  would  gradually 
undermine  the  power  of  the  army  and  navy  leagues.  Urge  on 
the  work  of  Hague  courts,  multiply  treaties,  improve  inter- 
national law,  he  counseled,  and,  finally,  with  world  organiza- 
tion complete  militarism  would  have  no  leg  to  stand  on  and  would 
collapse.  I  felt  at  the  time  that  this  would  be  true  if  reason 
ruled  and  no  selfish  interests  upset  the  logic  of  events,  but  I  had 
no  faith  that  men  who  have  made  vast  profit  from  armaments 
and  war  scares  would  relinquish  their  power  to  hood-wink  and 
to  drain  the  people.  As  well  expect  distillers  of  their  own  accord 
to  cease  making  whiskey. 

The  conflagration  of  Europe  is  the  outcome  of  the  policy  of 
letting  armament-makers  and  the  jingo  press  inflame  the  fear 
and  jealousy  of  governments  and  the  people,  while  the  sentries 
of  the  public,  who  should  have  been  on  guard,  dreamed  at  their 
post.  They  assumed  that  a  thoughtless  public  would  know  its 
own  interests  and  logically  work  to  attain  them.  The  generals 
and  the  Krupps,  Armstrongs  and  DuPonts  were  perfectly  will- 
ing to  let  us  read  papers  on  Hague  courts  and  prize  courts  and 
sea  law  and  on  Caloo  and  Drago  doctrines  and  laws  for  neutrals. 
It  amused  us  and  did  not  hurt  them.  In  fact,  in  our  country  the 
militarists  blandly  supported  it  and  formed  arbitration  societies, 
with  arbitration  and  armaments  walking  abreast,  arm  in  arm, 
'across  their  platform.  Whether  one  could  serve  'God  and 
Mammon  or  not,  it  was  certain  that  one  could  serve  God  and 
Mars.  The  one  holy  thing  which  they  insisted  was  taboo  from 
all  denunciation,  was  any  lessening  of  armaments  until  human 
nature  had  changed  and  the  millennium  was  in  sight.  Any  one 
who  dared  talk  of  our  nation  venturing  to  take  an  initiative,  to 
be  the  courageous  leader  in  a  new  policy  in  placing  more  reliance 
on  non-military  defenses,  was  told  that  he  was  no  patriot,  was 
"a  college  sissy,"  and  a  contemptible  "peace-at-any-price" 
nonentity.  The  conceit  of  the  militarist,  that  he  alone  loves 
righteousness,  is  characteristic. 

The  result  of  Europe's  preparedness  is  apparently  teaching 
no  lesson  to  our  own  people.    "Had  England  had  a  million  mei 

126 


in  arms  this  calamity  would  not  have  come,"  they  cry.  But,  as 
the  Westminster  Gazette  well  said,  "It  would  simply  have  come 
sooner."  The  worst  horror  of  this  accumulation  of  horrors  is 
that  on  every  hand,  even  in  our  country,  men  seem  to  be  losing 
their  power  of  reason,  their  realization  of  the  most  impassive 
facts.  A  college  education  gives  no  proof  that  the  man  who 
has  it  has  any  more  judgment  or  perception  of  relative  values, 
of  international  ethics  and  economics,  than  has  the  man  on  the 
street.  It  gives  no  proof  of  power  of  logic  or  of  imagination, 
we  are  sadly  learning. 

With  the  complacent  assumption  that  we  could  never  become 
militaristic,  that  we  would  fight  only  for  righteousness  and 
justice,  and  must  be  the  sole  judge  in  our  own  case  as  to  what 
is  just,  we  are  with  amazing  rapidity  adopting  the  very  prin- 
ciples of  reliance  on  force,  which  is  at  the  basis  of  this  whole 
setback  to  civilization.  German  military  efficiency  is  what  our 
army  and  navy  leagues  have  held  up  as  our  ideal.  The  head  of 
the  army  was  reported  as  saying  two  or  three  years  ago  that  he 
would  like  to  "out-German  the  Germans,"  and  teach  every  boy 
of  twelve  to  shoot.  Before  this  war  opened  our  military  authori- 
ties clamored  for  a  great  army.  Under  sharp  protest  that  it  is 
possible  for  us  to  be  militarized,  America,  under  the  sophistry 
of  the  panic-stricken  press,  is  fast  reversing  its  theories  and 
policies.  It  is  invoking  such  reliance  on  force  as,  if  carried  out, 
will  end  that  power  of  world-leadership,  which  is  ours  to-day. 

PREPAREDNESS 

What  shall  peace  workers  say  in  face  of  the  nation-wide 
campaign  for  what,  with  dangerous  euphemism,  is  called  "pre- 
paredness"? "Masked  words"  win  many  victories  over  reason 
and  logic.  Every  sane  person  believes,  of  course,  in  foresight, 
caution  and  adequate  preparedness  for  real  dangers.  If  the 
slogan  were  not  this  respectable  masked  word,  "preparedness," 
but  were  "more  taxation,"  "imitate  Europe,"  "teach  every  boy 
to  kill,"  millions  would  oppose  what  they  now  frantically  support. 

First,  let  us  say  that  we  as  laymen  make  no  apology  for 
discussing  the  question  of  national  defense,  because  it  is  a  ques- 
tion that  should  be  solely  dependent  on  one  consideration,  which 
we  are  competent  to  discuss.  This  is  not  our  coast  line,  our 
wealth,  our  population,  or  our  armaments.    It  is  our  danger,  not 

127 


Belgium's  or  Switzerland's  danger,  but  our  danger.  The  men 
in  Washington,  who  have  been  summoned  to  bend  their  energies 
on  the  problem  of  defense,  are  asked  to  consider,  not  what  is 
America's  danger,  but  "what  the  navy  must  be  in  the  future  to 
stand  upon  an  equality  with  the  most  efficient  and  most  prac- 
tically serviceable."  What  that  means  as  to  size,  I  know  not. 
If  it  means  to  ask  what  is  needed  to  make  our  navy  equal  to 
Great  Britain's,  certainly  it  would  mark  an  amazing  departure 
in  policy  from  all  previous  history,  and  this  is  hardly  likely. 

Technical  questions  must  be  left  to  experts.  But  the 
primary  question  that  ought  to  decide  the  amount  and  kind  of 
defense  is  one  which  the  intelligent  citizen  who  has  traveled, 
who  has  an  international  mind  and  is  not  biased  by  military 
predilections,  is  best  fitted  to  study.  The  last  man  who  can 
impartially  judge  what  is  our  danger  is  he  who  has  given  his 
chief  attention  for  years  to  the  technique  of  war.  In  proportion, 
as  he  has  knowledge  of  explosives,  physics  and  engineering,  is 
he  usually  unable  to  judge  psychological  problems  or  to  recog- 
nize the  power  of  non-military  defenses.  He  may  easily  gauge 
our  equipment  by  that  of  other  nations,  but  he  has  less  power 
than  most  to  estimate  the  fears  and  ambitions  of  foreign  cabinets 
and  of  the  germs  of  revolt  among  the  masses,  which  are  primary 
factors  in  considering  danger  and  safety. 

Let  us  welcome  the  advent  of  scientific  experts  to  make  more 
efficient  and  less  costly  the  armaments  that  we  now  have.  They 
ought  greatly  to  lessen  the  preposterous  expense  which  has  made 
our  war  and  war  budgets  out  of  all  proportion  to  results. 

At  this  stage,  while  some  of  us  believe  it  would  be  perfectly 
safe  to  begin  reduction,  the  majority  of  us  will  ask  for  nothing 
more  than  our  usual  war  and  navy  budgets  without  increase, 
except  in  small  degree  of  our  army,  which  should  be  kept  merely 
for  police.  I  for  one  believe  that  our  navy  budget  should  be  so 
expended  as  to  increase  those  measures  which  are  purely 
defensive  and  to  lessen  those  that  are  offensive.  The  power  of 
the  submarine  and  the  prospective  power  of  still  less  costly  sea 
weapons  give  us  promise  of  complete  security  from  invasion  if 
we  multiply  them  with  the  large  sums  hitherto  devoted  to  battle- 
ships. Before  the  war  we  were  spending  67  per  cent  of  our 
federal  income  on  war,  past  and  future ;  while  Germany  spent 
55  per  cent,  Japan,  45,  and  France  and  England,  35  per  cent. 

128 


Says  Herbert  Quick: 

"At  the  moment  sea  power  is  functioning  just  as  the  galleys  func- 
tioned at  the  battle  of  Lepanto,  for  perhaps  the  last  time.  The  sub- 
marine is  the  negation  of  sea  power.  It  creates  a  universal  stalemate 
at  sea.  It  can  prevent  the  transport  of  troops  by  water,  thus  putting  an 
end  to  conquests.  It  makes  peace  at  sea  the  only  practicable  thing. 
Defence  is  made  perfectly  practicable  against  overseas  expeditions 
everywhere." 

Nikola  Tesla  declares  that  "we  can  maintain  peace  for  our- 
selves and  help  to  maintain  it  for  the  world  by  adopting  radically 
different  methods  from  those  that  have  so  signally  failed  in 
Europe,"  and  he  prophesies  that  in  the  near  future  we  shall  have 
adequate  defense  by  wireless  control  of  crewless  vessels.  Let 
us  peace  workers  encourage  the  development  of  this  type  of 
defense  for  the  hypothetic  foe,  whose  ghost  is  scaring  our 
American  public.  Let  us  waste  no  more  taxes  on  $15,000,000 
battleships. 

Let  us  challenge  the  mad  cry  that  we  have  "only  two  alterna- 
tives"— one  a  regular  army,  five  to  ten  times  as  great  as  we  have 
now,  or  an  equally  great  reserve  army,  with  military  training 
for  all  boys.  There  need  be  no  such  alternatives.  The  danger 
to  this  country  from  the  psychological  effect  of  required  military 
training  upon  millions  of  youths  far  outweighs  in  loss  the 
increased  cost  of  time  and  money  involved.  Every  youth  will 
believe  that,  whereas  there  was  no  need  for  this  before  the  war, 
something  has  happened  now  to  necessitate  an  utter  change  of 
policy.  A  citizen  army  will  be  needless  for  us,  as  it  has  been 
necessary  for  little  Switzerland,  surrounded  by  old  enemies  a 
yard  across  her  border  line.  A  citizen  army  or  a  great  regular 
army  will  enormously  increase  our  spirit  of  suspicion  and  fear, 
which  is  one  of  the  primary  causes  of  war.  It  will  be  bound  to 
fill  the  minds  of  youth  with  false  theories  that  war  is  inevitable, 
that  government  is  based  on  force,  and  that  new  substitutes  for 
war  are  negligible.  No  such  results  will  come  from  increased 
coast  defenses  of  the  type  referred  to,  which  should  be  our  sole 
reliance  against  a  hypothetic  invasion. 

JUSTICE   TO   THE   ORIENT 

In  addition  to  a  more  effective,  though  not  more  costly, 
naval  defense,  we  should  demand  that  such  justice  be  done  to 

129 


the  Orient  as  shall  determine  any  ill  feeling  which  now  exists, 
and  remove  one  of  the  possible  causes  of  serious  friction.  Federal 
control  of  aliens  and  righteous  readjustment  of  some  of  our  inter- 
national relations  with  China  and  Japan  are  measures  which,  if 
advocated  by  the  Pacific  coast,  would  be  supported  by  a  unani- 
mous nation.  Our  primary  thought  must  be  not  arbitration,  or 
adjustment,  but  prevention.  It  was  upon  this  matter  of  preven- 
tion that  Elihu  Root  instructed  the  delegates  to  the  second  Hague 
congress  to  lay  their  emphasis.  There  is  where  emphasis  must 
always  be  put.  War  will  come  until  causes  of  war  are  removed. 
The  problem  of  our  relations  to  the  Orient  is  quite  as  serious  as 
that  of  our  relations  to  Europe. 

Why  multiply  military  defence  to  protect  us  against  ill-will 
that  can  be  absolutely  wiped  out  by  act  of  Congress  ?  For  years 
the  clamor  about  evil  designs  from  Japan  has  been  created  by 
a  few  vicious  interests,  which  have  deluded  many  timid  citizens. 
The  wanton,  wicked  talk  of  war  has  had  no  valid  foundation, 
and  has  done  infinite  harm.  It  is  time  for  every  patriot  to 
demand  that  it  shall  end,  that  we  cease  to  talk  about  the  "mastery 
of  the  Pacific,"  as  if  any  one  of  eleven  nations  bordering  on  this 
great  highway  of  the  world  could  be  its  "masters."  It  is  time 
to  plan  to  neutralize  the  Philippines  and  to  grant  them  independ- 
ence in  the  very  near  future,  and  thus  remove  our  greatest  cause 
of  apprehension  and  a  source  of  expense  not  profit.  This  need 
not  mean  withdrawing  benevolent,  unofficial  influence.  Th,e 
Philippines  will  doubtless  welcome  paid  advisers,  as  do  larger 
Oriental  nations.  It  would  mean  no  shirking  of  obligation.  It 
would  enable  us  to  lessen  our  navy  about  one-half,  and  thus 
encourage  less  militarism  among  our  poorer  neighbors  across  the 
Pacific,  who,  for  every  battleship  that  could  match  ours,  must 
by  so  much  deprive  themselves  of  the  bare  necessities  of  educa- 
tion and  internal  development. 

Now  is  our  glorious  opportunity  to  help  save  the  forward- 
looking  masses  of  Asia  from  taking  the  path  which  has  led  to 
Europe's  agony.  Now  is  our  blessed  opportunity  to  help  China 
develop,  not  costly  armaments,  beyond  such  coast  defenses  as 
have  been  referred  to,  but  to  develop  science  and  capital.  It  is 
lack  of  these,  not  lack  of  a  fleet,  that  has  made  her  the  object 
of  aggression. 

130 


The  Pacific  coast  can  do  no  greater  service  to  humanity 
than  to  take  instant  action  to  persuade  congressmen  this  winter 
to  present  bills  which  cover  a  just,  impartial  treatment  of  those 
matters  in  which  we  as  a  strong  nation,  dealing  with  less  privi- 
leged ones,  have  acted  sometimes  ungenerously  and  even  shame- 
fully. Two  methods  are  open  to  us  in  dealing  with  the  aggrieved. 
We  may  multiply  the  numerator  of  defense  or  we  may  divide 
the  denominator  of  danger.  The  security  in  each  case  will  be 
the  same,  but  removing  danger  often  costs  no  more  than  a 
government's  pledge,  while  multiplying  the  defense  not  only 
brings  crushing  taxation,  but  creates  suspicion  and  rivalry. 
Should  the  third  Hague  conference  neutralize  the  Latin  republics 
and  render  needless  our  Monroe  Doctrine,  it  would  be  the  best 
guarantee  against  attack. 

For  the  first  time  in  history  we  hold  an  International  Peace 
Congress  where  men  and  women  stand  on  a  political  equality. 
As  I  look  at  you,  enfranchised  women  of  this  glorious,  free 
West,  I  cry  out  to  you  in  earnest  supplication.  You  have  more 
power  than  the  men  of  this  great  state.  You  may,  like  them, 
guide  your  congressmen  to  deal  rightly  with  our  relations  to  the 
Orient,  but,  in  addition,  you  mothers  and  teachers  are  shaping 
the  thought  that  may  lead  to  a  regenerated  world.  The  youth 
of  to-day  must  know  vastly  more  than  his  father  was  ever  taught 
if  he  is  to  cope  with  the  perplexing  new  problems  that  confront 
a  world  which  will  soon  try  to  rebuild  half-demolished  civiliza- 
tion. Whether  it  shall  retrace  its  steps  or  advance  depends 
largely  on  the  one  great  world-power  that  is  not  hopelessly 
embittered  and  in  debt.  What  that  power  will  do  may  depend 
largely  upon  prejudices  or  the  wisdom  of  American  womanhood. 
Hitherto  most  of  our  great  bodies  of  organized  women  have 
been  largely  silent,  either  apathetic  or  too  timid  to  take  a  stand. 
While  abhorring  war,  they  have  yielded  to  the  clamor  for  arma- 
ments with  about  the  same  emotion  and  credulity  as  men.  The 
Woman's  Peace  Party,  and  the  noble  band  of  women  who  braved 
the  danger  of  the  sea  and  went  to  meet  their  sisters  from  twelve 
dififerent  nations  at  The  Hague,  have  perceived  the  significance 
of  this  solemn  crisis  and  woman's  great  opportunity  to  help  turn 
the  nations  from  the  path  to  the  abyss. 

They  appeal  to  you  to  begin  at  once  a  campaign  of  educa- 
tion.    Teach  a  forgetful  public  that  one  nation,  with  its  great 

131 


oceans,  its  4,000  miles  of  safe  Canadian  frontier,  its  thirty 
treaties  of  delay  before  hostilities,  has  unprecedented  non-mili- 
tary defense  that  must  not  be  minimized.  Teach  it  that  a  great, 
new  force  can  soon  be  brought  to  bear  which  may  be  vastly  more 
potent  than  short-lived,  costly  armaments. 

This  is  the  force  of  concentrated,  drastic  non-intercourse. 
It  is  the  boycott,  the  one  weapon  which  even  China,  single- 
handed,  has  used  with  some  effect,  though  spasmodically  and 
unsupported  by  the  government.  This  method,  when  used  by  a 
league  of  nations  to  ensure  peace,  would  be  backed  by  inter- 
tional  law,  and  would  cut  off  from  any  faithless  nation,  not  only 
all  intercourse  by  wire,  wireless,  railroad  and  shipping,  but  would 
cancel  passports,  patents,  copyrights,  and  would  impose  sub- 
sequently heavier  custom  duties,  and  punish  a  nation  as  none  has 
yet  been  punished.  This  method  of  making  anathema  a  recalci- 
trant until  he  yields  to  justice  is  the  sole  method  of  force 
advocated  by  the  New  Testament.  It  is  worth  trying  as  a  power- 
ful and  bloodless  compulsion  since  armaments  have  failed. 

We  women  may  well  study  such  substitutes  for  war  at  our 
club  sessions,  even  if  folk  dancing  and  bird  lore  and  some  other 
things  have  to  be  omitted.  During  this  perod  of  uncourageous 
scare,  when  men  assume  that  German  invasion  may  follow  this 
war,  let  us  teach  sanity  in  our  households  and  remind  its  mem- 
bers that  a  possibly  victorious  Germany  would  have  buried  or 
maimed  two  million  of  its  best  men  and  would  have  no  men  left 
to  hold  down  conquered  Belgian,  French,  Italian  and  British 
colonies  in  Africa.  It  would  not  light  for  South  America  within 
any  time  for  which  we  need  now  to  prepare  increased  equip- 
ment. Let  riot  the  nation  that,  when  this  war  is  over  will  be 
vastly  the  most  resourceful  in  the  world,  continue  this  disgrace- 
ful terror  about  a  Germany  which  would  be  overrun  by  defeated 
foes  the  week  it  sent  its  soldiers  beyond  sea.  Let  our  women 
save  us  from  being  overcome  by  the  mob  spirit  that  threatens 
our  republic. 

We  all  believe  in  God  and  know  that  reason  must  finally 
triumph,  but  we  cannot  look  with  tolerance  at  retrograde  move- 
ment which  will  compel  weak  peoples  to  sacrifice  bread  for 
bullets  and  may  eventually  fement  a  world-war  far  more  colossal 
even  than  this  European  war.  In  the  vast  starry  heavens  our 
tiny  planet  with  its  throbbing  human  hearts  is  but  a  speck,  and  to 

132 


the  Almighty  Father  a  thousand  years  are  but  a  day,  but  to  us 
children  of  time,  our  capacity  for  anguish  seems  infinite.  Blindly 
to  multiply  now  the  certainty  of  more  anguish  and  moral 
degradation,  to  throw  our  leadership  away  even  though  we  be- 
lieve that  ultimately  we  should  climb  back  out  of  the  abyss  and 
retrace  our  steps  to  where  we  now  stand,  can  give  little  consola- 
tion to  those  of  us  who  must  pass  on  soon  and  who  will  not  pass 
this  way  again. 

Let  us  courageously  insist  that  no  fatal  backward  step  shall 
be  permitted  by  our  beloved  land.  Let  America's  womanhood 
with  one  voice  call  upon  our  republic  to  rise  to  its  opportunity 
and  lead  the  world  in  the  new  path  toward  federation,  justice, 
peace. 


13.5 


World-Unity — The  Goal  of  Human  Progress 

MiRZA  Ali  Kuli  Khan 

I   HAVE  taken  for  my  subject  "World  Unity,  the  Goal  of 
Human  Progress/' 

Because  of  my  profession,  I  am  unable  to  touch  upon 
the  subject  of  peace  in  its  relation  with  the  present  conditions  in 
the  world.  I  shall  therefore,  in  the  capacity  of,  not  a  diplomatist, 
but  a  humble  scholar  and  student,  deal  with  the  subject  of 
human  unity,  for  to  my  mind  the  peace  of  the  world  is  a  perma- 
nent institution  conceived  in  the  mind  of  God,  and  which  is  to  be 
visualized  and  realized  on  this  phenomenal  plane  through  the 
unity  and  co-operation  of  mankind.  And  therefore  what  may  be 
going  on  in  the  world  to-day,  which  is  but  a  ripple  upon  the 
calm  sea  of  human  relations,  is  of  no  account.  It  will  be  con- 
signed to  oblivion  within  a  brief  period,  and  the  towering  fact 
— the  brotherhood  of  the  human  race — will  remain  to  be  realized, 
and  enjoyed  by  all  men  who  are  worthy  the  name  of  men  in  the 
terminology  of  the  prophets. 

Human  unity  has  always  been  the  goal  of  human  progress. 
I  believe  that  from  the  beginning  of  history  the  organization  of 
communities  has  shown  an  indubitable  trend  toward  unification. 
When  a  few  men  came  together  in  order  to  lay  the  foundation  of 
a  community  they  first  saw  to  it  that  a  co-operation  was  made 
possible  among  them,  due  to  which  co-operation  a  given  com- 
munity came  into  being.  And  then,  with  the  lapse  of  time,  the 
organizations  of  communities  assumed  larger  dimensions.  Then 
the  foundation  was  laid  for  a  body  politic,  occupying  a  limited 
space  called  that  of  a  village,  of  a  town,  and  then  later  that  of  a 
city,  and  gradually  that  of  a  nation.  We  see  that  the  coming 
into  being  of  a  larger  community  was  the  direct  result  of  the 
unity  which  was  born  of  the  co-operation  of  the  individual,  and 
of  integral  parts  of  the  smaller  communities.  This  then,  friends, 
proves  the  progressive  nature  of  the  human  race  and  its  per- 
sistent, indubitable  trend  toward  unity. 

It  is  due  to  this  eternal  law  characterizing  the  progress 
of  man,   that   all   prophets   constituting  the   master-minds   that 

134 


laid  the  foundation  of  the  most  permanent  communities 
throughout  the  world  proved  themselves  to  be  the  greatest  of 
all  optimists,  for  in  the  very  nature  of  a  given  number  of  men 
they  saw  a  trend  toward  co-operation  which  would  result  in 
unity,  and  the  fruit  of  that  unity  would  be  progress.  Hence 
they  gave  promises  concerning  the  coming  of  a  better  time,  of 
a  nobler  type  of  manhood,  of  a  broader  conception  of  a  human 
commonwealth,  whose  chief  aim  would  not  be  the  securing  of 
protection  and  well-being  for  the  people  with  whose  welfare  it 
will  be  immediately  concerned,  but  for  the  well-being  of  humanity 
at  large.  Hence  each  prophesied  concerning  the  day  of  human 
brotherhood ;  each  initiated  the  principle  of  a  human  unity,  which 
was  to  be  the  goal  of  all  human  progress.  This  accounts,  friends, 
for  the  optimism  of  every  prophet  who  came  into  the  world. 

Why  I  speak  so  much  of  prophets  is  because  no  community- 
hfe  of  a  permanent,  moral,  and  lasting  character,  came  into  being 
unless  it  was  established  upon  the  foundation  laid  with  the 
words  of  God,  revealed  by  inspired  master-men,  whom  we  call 
the  prophets  of  the  human  race;  for  in  their  aim  to  uplift  man 
they  did  not  concern  themselves  with  the  development  of  man 
in  one  only  of  the  phases  and  aspects  of  his  being,  but  with  the 
development  of  man  as  a  threefold  being — the  physical,  the 
mental  or  intellectual,  and  the  spiritual — in  that  they  undertook 
the  developing  of  all  these  three  phases  constituting  God's  idea  of 
man,  and  they  succeeded  in  preparing  human  ingredients  which, 
small  as  they  seemed  in  their  efforts  and  personalities  in  the  days 
of  their  existence  in  the  world,  proved,  through  their  lives  and 
words,  to  be  master  builders,  the  result  of  whose  constructive 
work  came  to  be  the  dispensation  of  prophetic  periods,  which 
filled  the  world  in  every  part  with  glory  and  with  power. 

Now  to  follow  these  trends  shown  by  the  unified  com- 
munities, whose  unification  was  affected  by  the  prophetic  minds 
of  the  times,  we  shall  be  brought  face  to  face  with  the  dawning 
of  an  era  that  was  foretold,  in  which  all  the  separate  sections  of 
the  body  of  humanity,  each  prepared  by  its  own  particular 
prophet,  would  be  brought  into  coalescence  in  order  to  round 
out  the  masterly  scheme  of  the  building  of  the  temple  of 
humanity  at  large,  in  which  the  oneness  of  the  God  of  humanity 
will  become  a  resplendent  and  visible  fact. 

135 


Hence,  friends,  because  of  this  scheme  of  the  Maker  of  the 
world  to  effect  the  peace  of  the  world  gradually  through  the 
unity  of  man,  it  is  for  us  glad  tidings  that  we  are  not  working 
toward  a  cause  that  is  a  lost  one.  We  are  not  choosing  a 
chimera,  but  we  are  building  hand-in-hand  in  order  to  complete 
an  edifice,  a  complete  plan  of  which  has  been  spread  before  our 
eyes  by  the  hands  of  the  master  architect,  the  Almighty,  whose 
work  we  are  executing  and  carrying  out  in  our  every-day  experi- 
ences and  activities.  This  is  glad  tidings  to  all  those  who  are 
working  for  peace.  Be  they  few  in  number,  they  are,  as  Christ 
said,  like  unto  the  mustard  seed.  Small  as  it  is,  it  will  eventually 
envelop  the  whole  world  and  fill  the  whole  world  with  its  wonder- 
ful results — that  men,  created  upon  this  plane  after  the  image 
of  their  Maker,  can  only  visualize  the  principle  of  the  oneness 
of  their  Maker  through  their  own  oneness  and  unity,  and  this  is 
the  goal  toward  which  they  are  traveling  in  their  every-day 
efforts. 

Now  to  come  down  from  these  principles,  friends,  the 
method  by  which  a  world  unity  can  be  achieved  is  to  be  sought 
in  the  method  by  which  the  unity  of  any  one  community  in  the 
world's  history  has  been  achieved. 

One  is  through  self-sacrifice.  Those  who  came  to  be  the 
fathers  of  a  family,  and  then  the  rulers  of  a  community,  and  the 
guides  of  a  town  or  a  city,  first  expanded  their  own  personalities 
and  hopes  and  aspirations  so  that  these  would  embrace  the  welfare 
of  their  fellow-men,  and  by  so  doing  and  offering  such  a  sacrifice 
they  were  capable  of  becoming  the  standard  bearers  of  the  well- 
being  of  a  community,  which  they  in  time  unified.  This  was  the 
lesson  that  the  prophets  gave  us.  The  greater  the  sacrifice 
endured  by  a  given  prophet,  the  greater  the  unifying  result  of  his 
mission. 

Each  prophet,  from  the  day  of  Moses,  not  only  laid  the 
foundation  of  a  community  of  his  own  day,  but  he  foretold  the 
coming  of  a  time  when  the  process  of  unification  would  envelop 
and  bless  a  larger  number  of  the  human  race.  And  Moses, 
with  his  greatness  and  with  his  great  laws,  laid  the  founda- 
tion of  the  coming  of  Christianity  when  the  laws  of  Moses,  that 
were  in  those  days  and  in  his  dispensation  confined  to  the  uplift 
and  in  the  interest  of  the  Israelites,  would  become  the  laws  of 
most  of  the  great  nations  of  the  world. 

136 


Then,  too,  when  Christ  came  he  brought  the  gospel  of  peace 
— ^that  is,  the  coming  of  the  world  peace — in  order  that  His  people 
might  anticipate  the  goal  of  this  message  when  "the  peace  of 
God,  that  passeth  all  understanding,"  would  envelop  the  whole 
world,  so  they  would  all  work  together  in  conformity  with  His 
blessed  teaching  in  solving  the  larger  problem,  which  was  not 
the  peace  of  the  Christian  world,  but  the  peace  of  the  world 
in  its  entirety. 

So  each  of  the  prophets  of  the  other  nations  came  and 
unified  his  own  community,  and  then  through  his  prophecies  pre- 
pared them  for  the  coming  of  a  greater  day,  wherein  the  message 
of  God  would  be  applied  to  the  unification  of  mankind. 

Zoroaster,  three  thousand  years  ago,  foretold  the  coming  of 
the  day  of  light,  and  in  the  fulfillment  of  his  prophecies,  as  well 
as  the  prophecies  of  the  other  nations,  I  believe  we  are  to-day 
standing  at  the  dawn  of  that  great  day. 

Let  us  not  be  disheartened  by  the  conflict  that  is  going  on 
in  certain  parts  of  the  world.  Remember  that  the  most  effective 
contribution  toward  the  realization  of  the  promises  and 
prophecies  of  the  past  prophets  concerning  human  unity,  is  to  be 
found  in  the  concensus  of  opinion  held  by  the  most  intelligent, 
self-sacrificing  people  of  the  world  in  every  land,  whose  very 
presence,  as  that  of  this  audience  to-night,  is  a  protest  against 
all  forms  of  conflict,  and  an  evidence  of  the  dawning  of  the  day 
when  not  valor  but  the  power  of  love  shall  be  the  guiding  star 
of  the  human  race  and  the  lodestone  of  divinely  inspired  human 
beings.  This  is  the  greatest  proof  of  the  fact  that  the  day  of 
peace  is  here,  and  it  is  this  which  inspired  us  to  activity  that  will 
eventually  cause  that  dawn  to  approach  its  zenith  and  achieve 
its  meridan  of  glory. 

Now  that  we  understand  that  the  unification  of  any  com- 
munity throughout  the  world's  history  has  been  due,  not  to  the 
power  of  arms  and  brawn,  but  to  the  power  of  heart  and  love, 
and  that  no  lasting  unification  could  be  bom  of  anything  but  the 
power  of  persuasion,  based  upon  love.  In  this  day  we  are  to 
apply  that  process  toward  the  unification  of  not  one  community, 
but  the  human  community  at  large.  We  must  expand  those 
divine  prophetic  principles  of  human  training  so  that  they  may 
reach  their  full  dimensions,  for  in  this  day  we  are  to  unify  the 
world  of  humanity,  not  any  one  section  of  the  human  race. 

137 


Shall  we,  then,  go  back  to  the  teachings  of  any  one  of  the 
seven  great  religions  of  the  world? 

But  it  is  necessary,  because  we  are  dealing  with  the  unifica- 
tion of  the  whole  world,  that  we  should  go  back  to  the  funda- 
mental, formative  principles  of  all  the  seven  great  religions  of 
the  world.  It  is  indeed,  friends,  our  task  to  go  to  the  origin  of 
the  principles  of  training  initiated  by  the  prophets  of  all  the 
religions  and  crystallize  them  into  an  efficient  instrument  with 
which  we  can  meet  the  problem  of  the  world  unification. 

Do  we  need  a  religion  in  this  day,  whose  concern  would  be 
to  teach  its  followers  and  the  members  of  its  fold  to  shun  all 
others  in  order  that  they  may  themselves  be  united  ?    No ! 

Would  it  be  our  duty  to-day  to  follow  a  religion  whose 
ideal  of  patriotism  only  embraces  the  people  of  a  certain  com- 
munity to  which  we  belong  ?    No ! 

Should  we  teach  our  youth  and  our  fellow-men  the  principle 
that  in  order  to  become  enriched  and  continue  to  be  enirched  in 
every  type  of  virtue  it  is  our  duty  to  keep  aloof  from  men  not 
belonging  to  our  race,  not  possessing  the  privileges  which  have 
been  ours  from  our  birth,  or  due  to  the  struggles  of  our  parents  ? 
No! 

Are  we  still  to  hold  up  a  god  of  our  own,  and  look  upon  the 
god  of  other  races  as  mere  fetich?    No,  far  from  it! 

We  are,  friends,  to  find  the  religion  of  humanity,  so  that 
we  may  be  able  to  uplift  humanity  at  large.  You  men  and 
women  who  are  present,  advocating  the  cause  of  peace, 
remember  that  you  are  responsible  for  the  welfare  of  the  entire 
race  of  mankind.  You  intelligent  men  and  women  gathered  here 
remember — and  let  this  message  go  forth  to  you  and  through  you 
to  all  those  equally  inclined  toward  this  noble  object  of  peace 
throughout  the  world — that  you  represent  the  chief  organs,  the 
intelligence,  the  perceptive  faculty  of  the  body  of  humanity  at 
large;  that  if  any  section  of  the  human  world  falls  or  is  falling 
you  are  just  as  much  interested  as  those  who  are  fallen,  and  in 
order  to  save  them  from  their  fallen  state  you  are  to  endeavor 
and  co-operate  and  work  hard  and  sacrifice  and  make  up  for 
what  is  lacking  by  any  given  section  of  the  body  of  humanity. 
All  that  is  being  destroyed  in  this  day  is  to  be  rebuilt  by  you 
constructive  workers  in  the  field  of  peace.    This  is  your  task. 

138 


Let  us  take  our  example  from  the  marvelous  scheme  by 
which  the  body  of  one  human  individual  is  kept  alive.  As  soon 
as  an  accident  happens  to  any  one  limb  of  this  body,  no  matter 
how  small  or  neglected,  or  far  away  from  the  center  of  life  and 
activity,  which  is  the  heart,  immediately  you  see  the  heart  rush- 
ing the  food  and  sustenance  of  the  blood  to  that  afflicted  member, 
thus  saving  the  day  and  the  situation. 

Friends,  we  therefore  are  called  upon  to  lay  the  foundation 
of  the  religion  of  humanity. 

None  of  the  past  religions  is  adequate  in  its  present  form 
to  respond  to  the  requirements  of  the  vast  problem  with  which 
we  are  face  to  face,  for  each  one  of  those  noble  religions,  true  as 
it  was  and  is,  had  to  do  with  a  certain  section  of  humanity  at  a 
given  period  of  its  development.  Humanity  has  now  arrived  at 
its  maturity,  and  therefore  to-day  we  are  to  bring  together  those 
noble  ideals  and  apply  them  to  the  need  of  the  entire  human 
race,  exclusive  of  none  and  inclusive  of  all. 

Representing  Persia  as  I  do,  I  wish  to  lay  before  you  in 
brief  my  country's  contribution  toward  that  world-religion,  upon 
which  a  world-peace  has  been  established,  and  which  is  growing 
in  its  efficiency  and  in  its  all-embracing  quality  from  day  to  day 
to  such  a  degree  that  to-day  about  twenty  millions  of  people, 
belonging  to  all  the  different  races,  religions  and  geographical 
situations,  are  following  it.  None  of  them  has  sacrificed  his  own 
religion  to  take  up  a  new  religion,  but  each  has  found  more  light 
in  his  old  religion  through  the  interpretation  that  this  universal 
religion  has  bestowed.  And  by  that  religion — if  you  may  call 
it  a  religion — I  mean  the  revelation  of  Baha'u'llah,  the  prophet 
of  peace  of  modern  Persia,  and  his  son,  Abdul  Baha,  now  living 
— the  prophet  of  peace  in  this  day. 

Baha'u'llah  was  preceded  by  the  Bab  seventy  years  ago.  In 
1844  the  Bab  arose  in  Persia  and  announced  to  the  world  the 
dawning  of  the  day  of  peace,  foretold  by  the  prophets  of  old. 
As  his  teachings  were  not  in  conformity  with  the  interpretation 
of  the  Koranic  teachings,  as  given  by  the  Mohammedan  mullahs, 
they  arose  against  him  and  caused  his  exile  from  city  to  city,  and 
finally,  after  six  years,  he  was  suspended  from  the  wall  of  the 
public  square  in  one  of  the  cities  of  northwestern  Persia,  and 
his  body  was  riddled  by  the  bullets  of  a  regiment. 

139 


The  Bab  died,  but  not  his  cause,  for  "He  whom  God  shall 
manifest,"  concerning  whose  coming  he  had  prophesied,  appeared 
in  the  person  of  Baha'u'Uah.  The  latter,  who  had  been  one  of 
the  Bab's  followers,  continued  to  spread  his  teachings  and  to 
interpret  them  among  the  people  of  Persia.  He,  too,  was  arrested 
and  put  into  prison,  kept  there  under  heavy  chains  for  five 
months,  and  was  then  released  and  exiled,  with  his  family  and 
some  of  his  followers,  to  Bagdad,  in  Asiatic  Turkey,  in  which 
city  he  was  confined  for  twelve  years.  As  his  activities  in 
attracting  thousands  and  thousands  of  the  people  of  the  eastern 
world  to  the  teachings  of  the  Bab  continued,  he  again  aroused 
the  jealousy  of  the  Mohammedan  mullahs  of  the  time,  who 
worked  hand  in  hand  in  order  to  persuade  the  ruler  of  Persia 
to  enter  into  negotiations  with  the  then  Sultan  of  Turkey  to  the 
end  that  Baha'u'Uah  and  his  family  should  be  exiled  still  further 
away  from  the  confines  of  Persia,  and  thus  be  placed  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  Mohammedan  world  there.  Hence,  in  the  twelfth 
year  of  his  confinement  in  Bagdad  he  was  sent  as  an  exile,  with 
his  family,  to  Constantinople,  overland  across  Asia  Minor,  and 
after  nine  months  there  he  was  sent  to  Adrianople.  After  a  con- 
finement of  five  years  in  that  city  he,  with  his  family  and  com- 
panions, was  exiled  to  the  prison  city  of  Akka,  the  ancient 
Saint-Jean  d'Acre,  which  is  about  a  day's  journey  from 
Jerusalem  and  Nazareth. 

Although  by  so  doing  they  thought  they  would  compass  his 
destruction,  yet  with  his  arrival  on  the  shores  of  the  Holy  Land 
there  was  fulfilled  to  his  followers  the  prophecy  concerning  the 
coming  of  the  manifestation  of  God  in  Palestine  to  achieve  the 
peace  of  man.  There  he  remained  as  a  prisoner  until  the  year 
1892,  when  he  died  a  natural  death.  Baha'u'Uah  revealed  his 
message  of  peace  and  good-will  to  mankind  in  many  epistles  and 
volumes,  some  of  which  he  addressed  to  the  crowned  heads  oi 
the  earth  and  to  the  ecclesiastic  leaders  of  men.  One  was  sent 
to  the  then  President  of  the  United  States,  General  Grant. 

In  the  year  1892  he  revealed,  before  his  death,  the  Book  of 
the  Covenant,  in  which  he  appointed  his  eldest  son,  Abdul  Baha, 
now  living,  as  the  one  who  should  interpret  his  teachings  and 
continue  the  unifying  of  the  people  of  the  world  and  the  effect- 
ing of  the  peace  of  men. 


140 


Remember,  the  sacrifice  made  by  Baha'u'llah,  and  before 
him  by  the  Bab,  was  not  only  confined  to  their  own  sufferings, 
but  there  appeared  about  twenty  thousand  men  who,  having 
believed  in  his  teachings  of  love  and  peace,  went  to  the  field  of 
martyrdom  and  died  the  death  of  martyrs  in  order  to  testify  with 
their  lives  that  the  day  of  peace  had  dawned. 

So,  friends,  because  you  are  advocating  peace,  and  for  the 
effecting  of  which  you  are  gathered  here,  in  spite  of  all  that  is 
going  on  in  the  world  that  is  opposed  to  this,  let  me  tell  you  that 
this  is  a  cause  for  which  as  many  as  twenty  thousand  noble  souls 
have  died  martyrs,  under  the  auspices  and  through  the  impetus 
of  this  great  Persian  prophetic  movement  of  this  modem  time, 
called  the  Bahai  revelation. 

Since  the  death  of  Baha'u'llah,  Abdul  Baha,  his  eldest  son, 
who  continued  to  be  a  prisoner  until  1908  in  Akka,  and  with 
whom  I  spent  fifteen  months  seventeen  years  ago  as  amanuensis 
and  interpreter,  has  been  working  and  spreading  these  teachings 
throughout  the  world,  so  that  in  America  alone  there  is  no  city 
or  town  of  any  size  but  where  you  will  find  there  a  Bahai  assembly 
spreading  the  love,  peace  and  unity,  upon  which  depends  the 
larger  unification  of  the  world. 

Abdul  Baha,  since  the  new  constitution  of  Turkey  was 
declared  a  few  years  ago,  was  released.  Then  he  left  Akka  and 
went  to  Egypt  and  Europe,  and  finally  came  to  the  United  States, 
and  traveled  for  nine  months  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific. 
He  also  came  to  San  Francisco,  and  be  it  said  to  the  credit  of  the 
peace-loving,  truth-seeking  people  of  America  that  with  but 
few  exceptions  there  was  no  organization — religious,  intellectual 
or  social — which  did  not  open  its  doors  and  which  did  not 
embrace  in  its  midst  Abdul  Baha,  the  great  prophet  of  peace, 
who,  for  the  cause  of  peace,  had  given  his  entire  life  of  sixty- 
eight  years  then,  in  prison  and  exile. 

So,  friends,  this  is  what  the  Bahai  revelation  has  done  to 
bring  humanity  toward  this  noble  goal,  toward  which  we  are  all 
striving.  While  Baha'u'llah  by  a  religious  means  is  solving  the 
problem  of  world-peace,  yet  the  first  practical  governmental  means 
to  be  devised  and  applied  toward  the  realization  of  world-peace 
has  been  adopted  by  this  great  nation  of  America,  this  greatest 
republic  of  all  time;  for  in  the  very  institutions  and  federal 
organization  of  this  great  country   we  have   a  great  example, 

141 


after  which  the  unification  of  the  entire  world  and  the  spread 
of  justice  and  fair  dealing  among  men  shall  be  effected.  See 
how  in  your  form  of  government,  which  is  federalism,  we  have 
an  example  of  a  world  federalism,  which  will  be  eventually 
effected,  and  in  the  fact  of  your  being  the  first  nation  to  introduce 
morality  into  your  international  relations  we  have  the  first  fulfill- 
ment of  a  moral  scheme,  whose  application  to  the  unification  of 
the  world  will  be  world-wide.  And  hence,  friends,  America — 
for  the  creation  of  which  all  the  suffering  people  of  the  world 
has  originally  been  chosen  to  contribute — is  the  country  which 
is  the  chosen  instrument  by  which  God  Almighty  will  effect  the 
unification  of  mankind.  Thus  we  should  not  be  surprised  to 
find  that  in  America  the  standard  of  universal  peace  has  been 
hoisted,  and  that  so  many  intellectual  and  spiritual  men,  who  in 
other  lands  perhaps  would  have  expended  their  talents  in  channels 
more  beneficial  to  themselves,  are  devoting  their  lives  toward  a 
cause  which  to  the  majority  of  the  superficial  people  of  the  world 
seems  to  be  a  lost  cause,  or  not  even  a  cause.  But  the  effort 
put  forth  by  the  most  intelligent  in  this  great  country  to-day  is 
bound  to  achieve  the  world's  peace,  which  to  you  seems  the 
noblest  of  all  causes. 

May  we  not  offer  this  evening  the  prayer  that  the  breath 
of  love  and  peace  that  is  going  forth  from  this  assemblage  shall 
so  inspire  our  children  from  the  early  days  of  their  development, 
and  so  inspire  those  who  are  older,  that  they  will  eventually 
forget  all  prejudice  and  bias,  and  all  selfish  patriotism,  and  come 
to  the  threshold  of  a  day  in  which  the  sun  of  peace  and  human 
unity  is  shining?  In  that  day,  which  we  believe  has  dawned, 
the  world  will  see  the  fulfillment  of  the  words  of  Baha'u'llah : 

"O  men,  you  are  all  the  leaves  of  one  tree,  the  fruits  of  one 

arbor,  the  drops  of   one  sea." 
"Glory  is  not  his  who  loves  his  country,  but  glory  is  his  who 

loves  his  kind." 


142 


The  Neglected  Aspect  of  Japanese-American 
Relations 

Yamato  Ichihashi,  Ph.D. 

"Oh,  East  is  East  and  West  is  West, 
And  never  the  twain  shall  meet, 
Till  Earth  and  Sky  stand  presently 
At  God's  great  judgment  seat." 

BUT  East  and  West  have  met,  and  are  bringing  themselves 
closer  and  closer  to  each  other.  That  is  a  fact  undeniable. 
But  do  they  understand  each  other?  The  question  must 
be  answered  in  the  negative,  otherwise  it  is  impossible  to  under- 
stand many  things  that  are  said  of  each  other,  not  only  by  the 
unintelligent,  but  by  intelligent  and  well-meaning  persons. 

A  well-known  American  Orientalist  remarks:  "American 
and  Asiatic  civilizations  rest  on  postulates  fundamentally  different 
and  antagonistic.  The  two  civilizations  cannot  be  assimilated ; 
but  this  does  not  prevent  an  Asiatic,  under  proper  social  con- 
ditions, from  giving  up  his  inherited  civilization  and  adopting  the 
American."  If  that  proposition  is  tenable,  then  there  is  no  hope, 
strictly  speaking,  of  harmonizing  the  two.  The  contact  between 
East  and  West  must  necessarily  result  in  the  destruction  of  the 
one  or  the  other.  The  contact  is  tragic.  And  the  magnitude  of 
such  tragedy  can  only  be  appreciated  with  a  knowledge  of  the 
two  civilizations  in  their  broadest  sense. 

Take  the  matter  of  population,  with  its  usual  classifications. 
To-day  the  population  of  the  known  world  numbers  approxi- 
mately 1,719,537,000,  distributed  as  follows: 

Geographical    Division                    Number  Percentaige 

Asia    955,478,000  55.6 

Europe    443,520,000  25.8 

America    174,844,000  10.2 

Africa    138,215,000  8.0 

Australia  and  Oceania 7,467,000  0.4 

Polar    Regions    13,000     less  than    0.1 

Accordingly,  the  Asiatic  population  constitutes  55.6  per  cent 
of  the  entire  population  of  the  world,  inhabiting  30.5  per  cent 
of  the  earth's  surface ;  while  Europeans  and  Americans  number 

143 


615,364,000,  or  constitute  36  per  cent.  In  other  words,  55.6  per 
cent  of  the  entire  population  represents  eastern  civilization,  while 
36  per  cent  represents  western  civilization.  These  concrete  facts 
cannot  fail  to  impress  us  with  the  magnitude  of  the  problem 
arising  out  of  the  contact  of  East  and  West.  And  we  might  as 
well  admit  at  the  outset  that  many  of  us  who  talk  lightly  or 
knowingly  about  the  problem  possess  but  a  little  knowledge.  But 
students  of  the  race  problem,  as  it  exists  in  the  United  States, 
know  something  about  its  stupendousness  and  complexity.  From 
that  we  may  easily  imagine  the  nature,  scope  and  character  of 
the  race  question  as  a  world  problem.  It  may  be  added  here  also 
that  in  dealing  with  the  race  problem  in  America  we  assume  the 
existence  of  Americanism,  concrete  or  abstract,  to  which  all  those 
who  seek  American  jurisdiction  must  unconditionally  submit 
themselves.  But  no  such  assumption  can  be  made  in  the  case 
of  the  general  contact  of  East  and  West.  In  this  larger  problem 
there  is  no  jurisdictional  claim.  Harmony  cannot  and  should  not 
be  effected  by  the  process  of  positive  destruction,  but  by  mutual 
concessions. 

Now  suppose  we  let  America  represent  western  civilization, 
and  Japan  eastern  civilization,  and  further  suppose  that  these 
representatives  have  met,  and  out  of  their  meeting  have  arisen 
difficulties  diverse  and  complicated  in  character.  Then  we  assume 
the  responsibility  of  solving  these  difficulties  because  we  are 
interested  in  perpetuating  peace  between  these  supposedly 
antagonistic  parties. 

We  would  ask,  in  the  first  place — how  did  these  two  parties 
happen  to  come  in  contact  with  each  other?  Was  it  accidental 
or  was  it  positive?  A  brief  inquiry  into  the  history  of  inter- 
national relations  between  the  United  States  and  Japan  will 
perhaps  enlighten  us  on  this  point. 

During  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  Japan 
welcomed  the  Portuguese,  Spaniards,  English  and  Dutch,  granted 
them  freedom  of  religion  and  commerce,  and  even  the  privileges 
of  extraterritoriality.  But  our  western  brethren,  especially  the 
Iberians,  paid  no  respect  to  the  sovereign  rights  of  Japan.  Their 
Christian  mission  was  to  destroy  paganism ;  in  other  words,  non- 
Christian  civilization.  The  religious  and  political  rivalry  among 
the  Iberian  religionists  began  to  interfere  with  the  domestic 
politics  of  Japan.     To  defend  her  existence,  Japan  closed  her 

144 


doors  to  foreigners.  She  efficiently  maintained  her  policy  of 
seclusion  until  the  middle  of  the  last  century. 

Then  America  began  to  batter  at  Japan's  doors ;  but  her  past 
experience  was  such  that  Japan  was  in  no  mood  to  listen  to 
American  logic  of  an  open-door  policy,  whereupon  America  began 
to  intimidate  and  to  threaten  Japan  at  the  point  of  the  big  guns 
of  her  "black  ships."  Poor  Japan  was  then  unable  to  resist,  and 
unwillingly  entered  into  a  commercial  treaty  with  America  in 
1854,  and  subsequently  with  other  nations  of  Europe. 

For  the  time  being  America  forget  her  self-interest  and 
became  very  altruistic  in  her  attitude  towards  Japan.  She 
encouraged  Japanese  students  to  seek  western  learning  here,  and 
they  came,  a  great  many  of  them,  and  for  many  years  America 
was  Japan's  efficient  teacher,  and  Japan  her  faithful  learner. 
Japan's  working  systems  were  soon  Americanized  and  western- 
ized. Feudal  government  was  overthrown  and  the  imperial 
government  was  restored.  Her  political,  social,  economic  and 
intellectual  life  attained  an  acceptable  standard  of  efficiency,  and 
in  1889  a  constitution  was  promulgated.  In  the  nineties  Japan 
was  able  to  administer  a  severe  punishment  upon  China,  then 
the  "Giant  Empire  in  the  Orient,"  but  since  the  "Sick  Man"  of 
the  Far  East.  From  1894  on  she  was  able  to  exercise  her 
sovereign  rights  over  tariffs,  as  well  as  to  enjoy  her  jurisdictional 
fights  over  foreign  residents.  These  facts  have  been  here 
mentioned  to  point  out  what  Japan  was  compelled  to  do  through 
the  college  of  hard  knocks  by  the  western  powers. 

Then  the  Boxer  trouble  of  1900  left  certain  matters  unsettled 
in  China,  which  led  to  an  unprecedented  alliance  between  East 
and  West,  known  as  the  Anglo-Japanese  Alliance  of  1902.  Then 
came  Japan's  life  and  death  struggle  in  1904.  To  the  great 
surprise  of  the  world  Japan  vanquished  Russia. 

Throughout  this  entire  period  of  half  a  century  of  Japan's 
struggle  America  had  given  her  real  friendship,  and  Japan 
acknowledges  it  with  a  sense  of  profound  gratitude.  But  Japan's 
victory  over  Russia  marks  the  turning  point  in  the  American 
attitude. 

America  began  to  manifest  an  unfriendly  attitude,  specific 
causes  of  which  are  difficult  to  trace.  Nor  need  we  now  inquire 
about  them.  The  fact  remains  that  America  has  not  been  the 
America  of  the  nineteenth  century.     The  unfriendliness  of  the 

145 


United  States  became  more  and  more  definite.  Recall  that  in 
1906  the  San  Francisco  Board  of  Education  enacted  an  ordinance 
discriminatory  against  children  of  Japanese  parentage.  Japanese 
residents  of  San  Francisco,  especially  those  engaged  in  the 
laundry  and  restaurant  business,  suffered  indignities  and  violence, 
whereuopn  Japan  was  compelled  to  enter  into  the  so-called 
Gentlemen's  Agreement  of  1907,  whereby  immigration  directly 
from  Japan,  and  migration  of  Japanese  laborers  from  Hawaii, 
Canada  and  Mexico  were  prohibited.  That  agreement  has  been 
so  rigidly  administered  by  the  Japanese  government,  so  that  even 
students  have  not  been  able  to  obtain  passports.  Under  the 
circumstances  the  Japanese  government  thought,  not  without 
reasons,  that,  so  far  as  the  question  of  Japanese  immigration  to 
California  was  concerned,  it  was  at  an  end.  However,  in  1913 
an  alien  land  law  was  enacted,  which  plainly  discriminates  against 
the  Japanese  in  California.  Then,  too,  the  present  naturaliza- 
tion law  of  the  United  States  does  not  permit  Japanese  to  become 
naturalized. 

These  are  some  of  the  more  definite  manifestations  of 
American  antagonism  to  Japan.  How  much  of  wisdom  these 
discriminatory  measures  possess,  from  the  standpoint  of  America, 
I  am  not  in  position  to  say,  but  they  have  already  worked 
very  many  hardships  and  injustices  upon  Japanese.  Such  are 
the  salient  facts. 

To  me,  more  significant  than  the  actual  hardships  and 
injustices  resulting  from  the  various  discriminatory  measures  is 
the  true  meaning  of  the  philosophy  that  lies  behind  those 
measures.  Let  us  restate  these  external  manifestations  in  their 
larger  aspects.  The  underlying  philosophy  assumes  the  impossi- 
bility of  harmonizing  the  civilization  of  the  East  with  that  of 
the  West.  Boldy,  the  one  must  succumb  to  the  other  if  the  con- 
tact is  to  be  maintained.    That  tragic  drama  becomes  inevitable. 

To-day,  Japan,  the  only  nation  of  Asia  recognized  as  a  great 
power  in  the  family  of  nations,  leads  in  the  Orient.  She  attained 
that  position  by  her  mastery  of  western  civilization.  Wishing  to 
share  the  privileges  with  her  less  advanced  brethren,  she  has 
been  doing  her  best  to  impart  to  them  the  advantages  of  western 
culture. 

This  educational  mission  Japan  thought  was  worthy  of  great 
effort,  because  she  believed  that  it  would  facilitate  and  accelerate 

146 


the  reconciling  of  the  two  civihzations,  but  a  starthng  paradox 
appeared.  The  leader  of  Asia  was  herself  confronted  by  the  fact 
that  her  mastery  of  western  culture  did  not,  after  all,  entitle 
her  to  an  equal  place  in  the  family  of  nations.  The  representative 
of  the  East  is  discriminated  against  by  the  representative  of  the 
West.  It  appears  then  that  the  West  does  not  wish  to  merge 
its  culture  with  that  of  the  East,  whose  constituents  make  up  over 
55  per  cent  of  the  world's  humanity.  Worse  still,  it  seems,  the 
West  demands  that  the  East  must  give  up  her  inherited  civiliza- 
tion and  submit  herself  to  the  dictates  of  the  West.  Is  that 
demand  reasonable  in  the  face  of  the  assumption  that  Japan  is 
neither  the  product  of  western  culture  nor  that  of  eastern 
civilization  ? 

A  sterner  fact :  It  is  impossible  to  destroy  the  East,  and  it  is 
undesirable  to  try  to  destroy  it.  We  do  not  want  German 
supremacy,  nor  do  we  want  the  supremacy  of  West  or  East,  yet 
harmony  or  peace  between  East  and  West  must  be  attained  and 
maintained.  Humanity  demands  it  because  it  gains  from  such 
mutual  understanding.  This  is  what  I  consider  the  most  funda- 
mental and  yet  most  neglected  aspect  of  the  American-Japanesfe 
relations.  But  the  situation  is  not  hopeless.  The  impasse  can  be 
overcome.  By  co-operation  America  and  Japan  can  render  the 
great  service  that  humanity  needs — the  tolerance  that  comes 
with  comprehension. 


147 


The  New  Orient  and  America's  Needed  New 
Oriental  Policy 

Sidney  L.  Gulick,  D.D. 

MANKIND  is  entering  a  new  era  of  its  history.     Mighty 
changes  have  been  taking  place  during  the  past  quarter 
century.    Man  has  gripped  Nature's  titanic  forces,  sub- 
jecting them  to  his  will  and  uses.     Space  is  crumbling  up  in  his 
hand.     The  heavens  above  and  the  sea  beneath  are  being  sub- 
jugated.   All  the  nations  and  races  are  immediate  neighbors. 

The  political  structure  of  Europe,  morover,  is  to  undergo 
as  yet  undreamed  transformations  in  the  coming  decade.  America 
is  also  being  inevitably  swept  along  in  a  mighty  current  that  will 
make  all  things  new  in  the  business  and  industrial  world,  and 
quite  likely,  also,  in  the  political  world. 

THE    NEW    ORIENT 

But  of  all  the  factors  now  visibly  at  work  creating  our  new 
era,  none  is  more  important  than  the  rise  of  the  New  Orient. 

"Asia  is  a  sleeping  giant,"  the  great  Napoleon  is  reported 
to  have  said.  "Let  her  sleep,  for  when  she  wakes  she  will  shake 
the  world."  Asia  is  awaking.  She  is  acquiring  the  mechanical 
instruments,  the  political,  economic  and  industrial  machinery,  and 
the  science,  education,  ideas  and  ideals  of  Occidental  civilization. 

The  West  has  already  forced  upon  the  East  mighty  trans- 
formations. The  East  will,  from  now  on,  contribute  an  increas- 
ingly important  factor  in  the  transformation  of  the  West.  As 
the  East  has  learned  by  many  disastrous  lessons  that  it  can  neither 
exclude  nor  ignore  the  West,  so  the  West  must  soon  learn  that 
it  cannot  wisely  ignore  nor  despise  the  East. 

THE    NEW    CONTACT    OF    THE    RACES 

Many  observers  have  been  declaring  for  a  decade  and  more 
that  the  greatest  world-problem  of  the  twentieth  century  is  the 
problem  of  the  contact  of  the  East  and  West.  Shall  it  bring  us 
weal  or  woe?  That  will  depend  in  no  small  measure  upon  the 
way  in  which  the  United  States,  and  especially  the  Pacific  coast 
states,  meet  and  strive  to  solve  the  question. 

148 


A  policy  of  race-pride,  disdain,  scorn  and  selfishness,  a 
policy  of  reliance  on  brute  force,  a  policy  devoid  of  sympathy 
and  helpfulness,  of  truth  and  fair  dealing  with  Asia  and  Asiatics, 
cannot  fail  of  disastrous  consequences  to  us  all. 

A    NEW    ORIENTAL    POLICY 

Only  a  policy  that  insists  on  truth  and  fair  dealing,  refusing 
to  be  stampeded  by  ignorance,  suspicious  and  malicious  false- 
hoods; a  policy  that  seeks  to  give  justice,  no  less  than  to  demand 
rights,  this  and  this  alone  can  turn  the  increasing  contact  of  the 
East  and  the  West  into  mutual  advantage. 

A  twentieth-century  Orient  confronts  the  West.  Our 
nineteenth-century  Asiatic  policy  is  not  only  obsolete,  but 
dangerous.  America's  new  Oriental  policy,  now  needed,  must 
provide  for  the  just  treatment  of  both  sides  of  the  Pacific. 

On  the  one  hand  the  new  policy  must  provide  adequately 
for 

California's  just  demands 

Were  immigration  as  freely  granted  to  Asiatics  as  has  been 
to  Europeans  the  Pacific  coast  states  would  undoubtedly  be 
invaded  by  millions  in  the  course  of  a  few  years.  Coming  by  the 
hundred  thousand  annually,  they  could  not  learn  our  language, 
nor  we  theirs.  Mutual  understanding  and  fair  dealing  would 
be  impossible.  The  result  would  be  Asiatic  and  American  races, 
institutions  and  customs  struggling  side  by  side,  with  endless 
rivalry  and  serious  collisions.  California  is  absolutely  right  in 
her  demand  that  she  shall  be  free  from  such  a  danger.  Only 
those  immigrants  should  be  allowed  to  enter,  reside  permanently 
and  own  land  in  California  or  anywhere  in  the  United  States 
who  can  become  citizens  and  be  completely  assimilated. 

On  the  other  hand,  equal  consideration  must  be  given  to 

japan's  just  demands 

It  is  of  course  human  nature  to  understand  one's  own  posi- 
tions and  hard  to  understand  those  with  whom  there  is  rivalry  or 
conflict.  Every  struggle  between  classes  or  races ,  or  even 
individuals,  shows  this.  And  yet  for  a  real  solution  of  difficulties 
the  first  thing  is  to  see  the  other  man's  viewpoint. 

Long  study  of  this  question  has  shown  us  that  Japan  has, 
in  important  respects,  misunderstood  California,  and  also  that 

149 


California  has  misunderstood  Japan.  Let  me  make  clear  just 
what  Japan  does  and  does  not  ask.  Japan  does  not  ask  for  free 
immigration.  For  seven  years  she  has  carried  out  strictly  the 
"Gentlemen's  Agreement,"  refusing  passports  to  all  new  Japanese 
labor  immigration  to  the  United  States,  Canada  and  Mexico. 
The  result  is  that  the  number  of  Japanese  laborers  in  the  United 
States  is  several  thousand  less  than  eight  years  ago. 

What  Japan  does  ask  is  that  those  of  her  people  who  are 
already  here  or  may  come  here  in  harmony  with  our  laws  and 
agreements  shall  receive  a  treatment  that  is  free  from  discrimina- 
tion against  them  as  Japanese.  She  holds  that  friendship  between 
the  two  nations  is  impossible  when  one  nation  insists  on  humiliat- 
ing the  other. 

NOT  AN    INSOLUBLE  DILEMMA 

While  at  first  sight  the  just  desires  of  California  and  the 
equally  just  desires  of  Japan  seent  to  involve  an  insoluble 
dilemma,  it  is  not  really  so.  There  is  a  solution  that  provides 
for  the  just  demands  of  both. 

THE    PROBLEM    OF    EUROPEAN    IMMIGRATION 

We  need  to  observe,  in  the  first  place,  that  our  Atlantic 
coast  states  have  been  involved  in  difficulties  with  large  immigra- 
tion from  Europe,  identical  in  kind  and  much  more  severe  in 
economic  strain  than  that  experienced  by  California  from  Asiatic 
immigration. 

NEED  OF  A  GENERAL  SOLUTION 

The  nature,  moreover,  of  Japan's  and  China's  desires  is  such 
that  their  problem  cannot  be  solved  by  any  form  of  dififerential 
or  race  discriminatory  legislation.  Their  rising  national  con- 
sciousness and  self-consciousness  resents  such  legislation  and 
treatment  as  humiliating,  as  an  affront  to  the  dignity  and  honor 
of  their  race  and  people. 

The  needed  solution,  therefore,  for  the  Asiatic  problem  must 
be  quite  general  in  its  character. 

Without  question  one  of  the  greatest  problems  before  the 
American  people  to-day  is  that  of  the  just  and  efficient  treatment 
of  the  incoming  tide  of  alien  peoples.  Our  immigration  laws 
are  unsystematic,  inadequate  and  discriminatory.  Moreover, 
our  provisions  for  the  proper  treatment,  distribution  and  educa- 

150 


tion  of  aliens  already  admitted  are  seriously  defective  or 
entirely  wanting.  Our  problems  of  unemployment  and  industrial 
unrest  are  intimately  related  to  the  entire  question  of  immigra- 
tion. We  find  ourselves  accordingly,  increasingly  embarrassed, 
both  internally  and  internationally.  Has  not  the  time  come  for 
comprehensive  legislation  dealing  with  the  entire  immigration 
question  ? 

OUTLINES  OF  THE  NEW  POLICY 

1.  America  should  admit  as  immigrants  only  so  many  aliens 
from  any  land  as  she  can  Americanise. 

Americanization,  however,  takes  place  largely  by  means  of 
those  already  Americanized,  who  know  the  languages,  customs 
and  ideals  of  both  peoples — ours  and  theirs. 

2.  All  immigration  should  therefore  be  limited  to  a  definite 
per  cent  (say  five)  annually  from  each  land  of  those  already 
naturalized  from  that  land,  with  American-born  children.  This 
rate  would  allow  large  immigration  from  Europe,  differing,  of 
course,  in  actual  number  with  the  different  countries,  and  yet  at 
the  same  time  it  would  permit  only  a  slight  immigration  from 
Asia,  not  more  than  a  few  hundred  each  annually  from  China 
and  Japan. 

Provision  should  also  be  made  for  the  care  and  rapid 
Americanization  of  all  who  do  come  to  America.  It  is  therefore 
important  to  establish: 

3.  A  Bureau  of  Registration.  All  aliens  to  be  and  to 
remain  registered  until  they  become  citizens.  There  should  be 
an  annual  registration  fee  of  say  ten  dollars,  or  perhaps  five. 

4.  Also  a  Bureau  of  Education.  To  set  standards,  pre- 
pare text  books,  and  hold  examinations  free  of  charge.  The 
registration  fee  should  be  reduced,  perhaps,  by  $1.00  for  every 
examination  passed. 

5.  Also  new  regulations  for  the  Bureau  of  Naturaliza- 
tion. Certificates  of  graduation  from  the  Bureau  of  Education 
and  of  good  behavior  from  the  Bureau  of  Registration  should  be 
essential  to  naturalization.  All  new  citizens  should  take  the  oath 
of  allegiance  to  the  flag  on  the  Fourth  of  July,  on  which  day 
there  might  well  be  processions  with  banners  and  badges, 
welcome  orations  and  responses. 

151 


6.  Eligibilty  to  American  citizenship  should  be  based  on 
personal  qtialifications.  The  mere  fact  of  race  should  be  neither 
a  qualification  nor  a  disqualification. 

7.  And,  finally,  but  of  the  greatest  importance,  we  need 
Congressional  Legislation,  giving  adequate  responsibility  and 
authority  to  the  federal  administration  for  the  protection  of 
aliens. 

Such  comprehensive  legislation  would  co-ordinate,  systema- 
tize and  rationalize  our  entire  immigration  policy,  free  it  from 
invidious  race  discrimination,  protect  American  labor  from 
danger  of  sudden  and  excessive  immigration  from  any  land,  and 
promote  the  wholesome  assimilation  of  all  newcomers.  It  would 
also  safeguard  our  democratic  institutions.  The  difficult  prob- 
lems connected  with  European  immigration  would  thus  be  met 
in  a  comprehensive  and  thoroughly  rational  way. 

Would  not'  such  a  policy  completely  provide  for  the  just 
claims  of  both  California  and  Japan,  and  therefore  solve  perma- 
nently the  perplexing  American-Japanese  problem? 

If  it  solves  the  Japanese  problem  it  would  also  solve,  before 
it  again  becomes  acute,  the  Chinese  problem;  for  we  may  be 
sure  that  the  Chinese  nation  will  not  remain  permanently 
indifferent  to  the  present  humiliating  treatment  to  which  Chinese 
are  subjected  in  this  land. 

The  lurid  light  of  Europe's  tragedy  is  disclosing  the  awful 
character  and  consequences  of  war.  We  see  clearly  that  modern 
wars  spring  from  international  fears,  misunderstandings,  sus- 
picions and  injustices.  Is  this  not  a  fitting  time  to  rectify  our 
relations  with  China  and  Japan?  The  permanent  peace  of  the 
world  depends  upon  international  justice  and  good-will.  Should 
not  America  take  the  lead  in  this? 

Does  not  the  policy  here  sketched  solve  the  American- 
Japanese  problem,  along  with  many  others? 


152 


Constructive  Work  for  Peace 

Charles  S,  Macfarland,  D.D. 

THERE  are  two  lines  of  procedure  which  have  been  largely 
neglected  by  the  advocates  of  international  friendship  and 
goodwill. 

The  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America, 
upon  giving  serious  and  mature  thought  to  the  part  which  the 
churches  might  take  with  most  effectiveness  in  the  movement 
for  peace,  decided  upon  two  of  these  definite  courses  of  action. 

Our  peace  organizations,  past,  present  and  proposed  for  the 
future,  are  many;  their  name  is  legion.  We  have  the  societies 
for  peace,  propositions  for  international  courts,  world  federa- 
tions, and  leagues  for  the  obtaining  of  peace  by  many  and  divers 
methods,  and  they  are  all  helpful  to  the  situation.  This  is,  above 
all  things,  the  time  for  the  release  of  ideas.  I  sometimes  join 
two  organizations  which  might  seem,  to  superficial  observers, 
to  be  somewhat  contradictory  in  their  proposed  means  and 
methods. 

It  is  clear  to  men  of  vision  that  the  old  international  order 
of  Europe  is  absolutely  broken  down,  and  that  a  new  order  must 
take  its  place;  but  this  is  no  clearer  than  that  the  governing 
powers  of  our  internal  social  life  have  failed  and  that  a  new 
order  must  be  brought  about,  either  by  the  transforming  power 
of  a  great  gospel,  or  else  must  rise  from  out  the  ashes  of  the  old. 

And  the  new  order  must  come,  both  here  and  there,  by  the 
same  great  spiritual  transformation,  the  appeal  of  a  higher 
imaginative  pity,  the  conservation  of  human  heritages,  the 
unwillingness  that  even  one  of  these  little  ones  should  perish, 
and  by  diverting  all  that  is  high  and  holy  in  the  fighting  spirit 
by  setting  before  the  eyes  of  men  the  great  moral  equivalents 
orf  war;  so  that  mankind's  scarlet  sins  themselves  may  be  as 
white  as  wool,  as  they,  instead  of  fighting  each  other,  shall 
fight  for  each  other,  the  moral  battles  of  our  humanity  against 
disease,    injustice,    inhumanity,    and    every    subtle    foe    of    our 

153 


common  human  progress.  For  we  have  not  yet  even  tested, 
except  in  a  very  timid  way,  what  this  newer  humanitarianism 
may  do  to  bring  forth  heroism,  courage  and  endurance,  and  the 
very  wrath  of  man  may  yet  be  made  by  God  to  praise  Him ;  for 
even  now,  down  in  their  hearts,  as  Ruskin  declared,  men  worship 
the  soldier,  not  because  he  goes  forth  to  slay,  but  to  be  slain. 

We  have  had  our  conferences  at  The  Hague,  and  none 
should  belittle  them.  And  yet  how  pitifully  their  little  programs 
of  mitigation  have  failed!  We  have  had  within  the  nations  our 
societies  for  peace  and  arbitration,  and  we  should  not  despise 
their  efforts.  But  they  have  discovered  that  they  were  trying  to 
put  new  wine  into  old  bottles,  and  new  patches  upon  old  garments. 
Their  work  has  not  been  anti-Christian ;  perhaps  it  has  not  been 
non-Christian,  but  it  was  not  essentially  and  effectively  Christian. 
The  instruction  of  our  youth  has  not  reached  the  fundamental 
basis  of  all  peace  and  brotherhood.  The  peace  of  Jesus  Christ 
is  a  very  different  thing  from  that  of  the  peace  movement.  We 
could  never  imagine  the  Master  urging  the  nations  to  be  peace- 
ful because  war  would  waste  their  material  resources.  Norman 
Angell,  good  as  he  is,  and  he  is  good,  is  quite  removed  from 
Jesus.  We  cannot  imagine  Jesus  contenting  Himself  with  inter- 
national laws  for  the  restriction  of  hostile  manceuvres. 

Every  problem  in  the  world  is  fundamentally  a  problem  in 
education.  The  present  devastation  of  Europe  is  said  to  be  due 
to  three  elements — the  militarists,  the  aristocracy  and  the  intellec- 
tuals. It  is  due  far  more  to  the  third  of  these  than  to  the  other 
two.  We  can  never  make  peace  between  our  classes  at  home, 
or  peace  between  the  nations  abroad,  by  conferences  and  laws 
and  resolutions,  while  the  children  of  men,  as  students  of  history, 
both  secular  and  sacred,  are  impregnated  with  the  belittling  sense 
and  the  trivial  sentiment  of  a  group  morality,  class  brotherhood, 
and  a  false  and  untamed  patriotism,  with  its  national  and  racial 
distinctions. 

If  one-tenth  of  the  time  and  effort  given  to  peace  parties 
and  programs,  conferences  and  economic  argument  had  been 
spent  in  the  public  school,  in  the  study  of  history  and  on  the 
Sunday-school  curricula,  we  should  not  now  be  the  unwilling 
witnesses  of  a  world  gone  mad.  The  real  forces  that  have  been 
bringing  the  nations  together  have  been  those  of  individual  and 
group  relationships.     They  have  not  been  statecraft  and  diplo- 

154 


macy.  The  state,  as  we  now  conceive  it,  is  a  fiction ;  international 
law  a  romance,  written  on  a  scrap  of  paper.  The  future  must 
deal  with  realities  and  not  with  diplomatic  fable.  If,  when  the 
present  carnage  is  over,  the  old  order  of  things  in  international 
politics  remains,  the  future  will  be  worse  than  the  present.  There 
must  not  be  left  one  stone  upon  another.  If  our  present  con- 
ceptions of  statecraft  and  diplomacy,  with  their  serpentine  ethics, 
rubber-soled  steps  and  tongue-tied  speech,  are  maintained,  for 
every  devil  that  we  cast  out,  seven  more  will  come  in  to  occupy 
the  house. 

There  is  only  one  Builder  that  can  build  the  new  temple, 
and  He  can  do  it  in  three  days. 

The  Church  has  surrendered  to  economists  and  jurists  a 
leadership  that  belonged  to  herself,  has  consented  to  a  blind 
utilitarianism,  has  seemed  to  confess  that  the  ultimate  and  the 
eternal  were  something  political  and  legal,  has  let  the  world  go 
mad  with  its  monstrous  materialism,  shaping  its  political  and 
social  economy. 

These  world-forces  cannot  give  the  constructive,  vital  power 
for  the  healing  of  the  world.  The  nations  must  have  some  power 
that  will  transform  their  feelings,  their  jealousies,  their  passions, 
and  open  their  eyes  to  their  poor  little  racial  distinctions. 
The  world  has  forsaken  the  Master  and  has  yielded  upon  the 
mountain  of  temptation ;  has  fallen  down  and  worshipped  for 
the  sad  promise  of  the  kingdoms  of  the  devil.  They  tell  us  that 
our  idealism  has  broken  down.  Speaking  in  a  world  sense,  the 
world  has  broken  down  because  we  stifled  our  idealism.  We  have 
tried  to  leap  the  chasm  by  gradual  procedure.  Christianity  has 
never  yet  declared,  so  that  men  should  understand  it,  that  God 
knows  nothing  about  races  or  nations,  and  that  the  words  white, 
yellow,  Slav,  Teuton,  and  Anglo-Saxon  are  not  found  in  the 
divine  vocabulary;  for  in  the  speech  of  the  Infinite  there  cannot 
be  Greek  or  Jew,  circumcision  or  uncircumcision,  barbarian, 
Scythian,  bondman  or  free. 

The  Federal  Council  therefore  decided  that  it  would  not 
project  a  new  peace  movement  other  than  that  carried  on  by  its 
own  Commission  on  Peace  and  Arbitration.  It  decided  to  proceed 
upon  two  definite  lines,  the  first  of  these  being  the  utilization  of 
the  influence  of  group  relationships  between  the  nations;  the 
other  being  our  regular  processes  of  education. 

155 


For  the  first  of  these,  an  immediate  opportunity  presented 
itself.  The  missionaries  in  Japan  memoriaHzed  the  Federal 
Council  and  sent  a  personal  delegate  to  present  their  memorial 
concerning  the  relations  between  America  and  Japan.  As  the 
result  of  this  action  the  Council  appointed  a  Commission  on 
Relations  with  Japan,  made  up  of  some  of  the  most  prominent 
men  in  the  country,  and  engaged  Rev.  Sidney  L.  Gulick,  who  had 
spent  twenty-six  years  in  that  country,  as  its  special  representa- 
tive. In  addition  to  the  important  and  influential  field-work  of 
Dr.  Gulick,  another  representative,  an  expert  in  investigation, 
was  sent  to  the  Pacific  coast  to  prepare  a  report  upon  the  whole 
situation.  His  report  is  probably  the  only  setting  forth  of  the 
real  conditions,  and  is,  at  any  rate,  the  only  authentic  one. 

A  Christian  embassy,  consisting  of  the  President  of  the 
Federal  Council,  Professor  Shailer  Mathews  and  Dr.  Guhck, 
was  then  sent  to  Japan  to  bear  a  message  of  good-will  from  the 
Churches  of  Christ  in  America,  not  only  to  the  Churches  of 
Christ  in  Japan,  but  also  to  the  people  of  Japan.  This  is  prob- 
ably the  first  time  in  history  that  such  an  embassy  has  been 
sent  from  the  churches  of  one  nation  to  the  churches  of  another 
nation.  In  any  event,  it  is  the  first  time  that  such  brethren  have 
gone  from  the  churches  of  America  to  the  churches  of  a  mission- 
ary nation,  not  as  patrons  and  teachers,  but  as  Christian  brothers. 
Meanwhile  Dr.  Gulick  has  also  been  released  in  the  interest  of 
general  international  good-will  from  the  Christian  point  of  view. 

Another  example  of  the  influence  of  group  relations  is  the 
organization  of  the  World  Alliance  of  the  Churches,  containing 
representatives,  so  far  as  they  can  be  obtained,  of  churches  of 
all  the  nations  of  the  world.  It  already  includes  representatives 
of  all  the  nations  now  unhappily  at  war.  We  profoundly  believe 
that  this  work  upon  the  part  of  the  churches  is  of  far  greater 
importance  than  the  issuing  of  pronouncements  or  the  organiza- 
tion of  societies. 

The  second  line  of  procedure  is  in  the  direction  of  funda- 
mental education,  not  only  of  our  older  people,  through  the 
instruction  of  adult  congregations  and  classes,  but  also  through 
the  training  of  our  children,  beginning,  if  possible,  with  the 
primary  department,  in  the  ultimate  principles  of  Christian 
brotherhood. 


156 


At  the  present  time  classes  are  being  organized  in  churches  all 
over  the  country,  using  as  a  handbook  Dr.  Gulick's  "Fight  for 
Peace."  In  some  cases  adult  classes  in  Sunday  schools  have  been 
diverted  to  this  study.  In  other  churches  special  classes  have  been 
formed,  and  sometimes  international  friendship  and  good-will  is 
made  the  subject  of  the  week-night  meetings  of  the  churches.  The 
Commission  on  Christian  Education  of  the  Federal  Council  was 
also  authorized  and  instructed  to  prepare  full  lessons  on  inter- 
national peace,  to  be  introduced  into  the  Sunday-school  curricu- 
lum. This  fall  these  lessons  will  appear  in  full  in  something  like 
four  million  Sunday-school  quarterlies,  this  being  the  first  time 
that  lessons  on  international  and  inter-racial  friendship  and  good- 
will have  ever  been  systematically  made  a  part  of  Sunday-school 
instruction.  A  large  and  comprehensive  handbook  has  also  been 
prepared  for  the  training  of  the  teachers  of  these  classes  them- 
selves. It  is  hoped  that  these  lessons  will  be  introduced  into 
something  like  thirty  or  forty  million  quarterlies  as  fast  as  the 
arrangement  can  be  made.  They  will  be  printed  in  foreign 
tongues,  and  already  have  appeared  in  German  in  several 
instances. 

Our  brothers  and  our  sisters  across  the  sea  have  been 
trained  and  guided  wrongly?  Grant  it  all!  The  children  of 
their  fathers  were  conceived  in  national  sin  and  born  in  racial 
iniquity,  and  the  result  is  international  depravity?  Yes.  But 
how  far  is  our  own  better  state  due  to  our  better  national 
morals,  and  how  much  do  our  more  favored  station  upon  the 
map  of  the  world?  And  what  if  our  children  of  the  next 
generation  should  be  called  to  their  mountain  of  temptation? 
Might  not  they  too  fall  down  and  worship  for  the  sake  of 
the  kingdoms  of  this  world? 

The  child  must  be  taught  to  feel,  and  to  feel  it  deeply, 
that  the  black  man  at  home  and  the  black  man  in  Africa  be- 
long to  the  same  race  and  state  as  himself;  that  the  yellow 
man  in  the  laundry  and  the  yellow  man  in  the  Far  East  are 
of  his  own  blood  and  live,  not  only  in  the  same  house,  but 
in  the  same  Father's  house.  Not  until  then  will  the  great 
mass  of  the  world's  toilers  shake  off  the  hypnotism  of  state- 
craft and  diplomacy,  and  witness  the  brotherhood  of  the 
world,  bereft  of  the  commercial  title  "limited." 

157 


The  waving  of  an  ensign  will  lose  its  mesmeric  power. 
There  is  no  emblem  in  the  world  that  has  been  used  to  greater 
dishonor  than  the  flag;  and  our  own  Stars  and  Stripes  in  for- 
eign lands  and  in  those  of  our  near  neighbors,  has  been  used 
to  cover  and  protect  the  infamy  of  private  exploitation.  It 
has  been  used  at  home  and  abroad  to  hide  God's  sunlight 
from  the  eyes  of  simple,  trusting  men. 

In  their  patriotism,  our  children  should  salute  at  least 
two  flags;  the  one  that  designates  the  home  in  which  they 
happen  to  be  born,  and  then  a  new  world-flag  which  shall 
signify  every  race  and  every  nation  and  every  color  of  mankind. 

Our  children  should  be  reminded  at  every  meal,  of  those 
from  every  corner  of  the  world  who  help  to  set  their  table. 
An  education  that  draws  a  meretricious  inspiration  from  past 
national  deeds  or  gaudily  apparelled  misdeeds  of  the  present,  is 
an  unhealthy  and  infected  thing. 

In  their  prayers  they  should  be  taught  to  pray  that  God 
shall  preserve  their  nation  from  other  nations;  while  they 
should  also  be  taught  to  pray  that  other  nations  should  also 
be  preserved  from  theirs. 

For  some  reason  or  other  we  have  not  taught  our  chil- 
dren that  they  must  love  without  distinctions  of  class,  and 
that  they  must  love  all  the  more  those  who  are  the  more 
despised.  We  have  not  told  them  that  they  must  be  just  as 
loving  and  just  as  loyal  to  their  brothers  and  sisters  in  England, 
Germany,  Austria,  Japan  and  China  as  to  those  in  America.  We 
have  taught  them  in  our  Sunday  schools  to  worship  Abraham  of 
the  East,  but  left  them  to  spit  on  Abraham  of  the  East  Side. 
Jesus  said  that  a  man  must  "love  his  neighbor  as  himself,"  and 
He  meant  it  for  nations  and  races  as  well  as  for  individuals. 

The  secular  history  in  our  public  schools,  the  sacred  his- 
tory in  our  Sunday  schools,  has  glorified  conquest  in  the 
one  and  in  the  other.  One  of  the  most  solemn  and  sovereign 
rights  of  the  child  of  our  day  and  generation  is  the  right  to  a 
social  vision  as  clear  as  the  face  of  Jesus ;  to  a  national  and  racial 
consciousness  that  shall  sweep  the  world  in  its  affection.  It  has 
been  denied  them,  and  to-day  they  breathe  the  sense  of  class  dis- 
tinction. The  scene  of  race  prejudice  becomes  their  natural 
heritage  on  every  hand.  Historic  terminology  of  both  Sunday 
school   and  public   school   should  absolutely   wipe  out   in  their 

158 


present  connotation  such  words  as  Anglo-Saxon,  Celt,  Slav, 
Teuton,  Latin,  Mongolian,  Caucasian,  African.  They  should  be 
obliterated  from  the  lexicon  of  youth.  In  our  public  schools,  in 
the  sense  which  they  now  convey,  we  should  expunge  the 
discriminations  of  civilized,  semi-civilized,  barbarian,  and  sub- 
stitute a  new  distinction  which  shall  be  grounded  upon  his- 
torical perspective  and  the  principle  of  relativity;  likewise  in 
our  Sunday  schools,  such  words  as  heathen  and  pagan  should  be 
similarly  treated. 

The  greatest  task  that  awaits  our  experts  in  education 
to-day  is  not  the  insertion  of  a  few  quarterly  lessons  on  peace 
and  goodwill,  but  the  whole  reconstruction,  from  beginning 
to  end,  of  the  teaching  of  childhood  in  the  principles  of  a 
world-wide  brotherhood  that  breaks  down  every  social  and 
political  barrier  that  has  been  created  by  the  failing  vision  of  man. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  churches  are  inactive.  It  is  true 
they  have  not  made  united  pronouncements  nor  have  they 
been  holding  large  conventions  during  the  past  few  weeks. 
The  Federal  Council,  however,  has  been  in  constant  corres- 
pondence with  leaders  of  the  churches  in  all  of  the  nations 
now  at  war,  and  is  and  has  been  in  every  way  attempting  to 
prepare  for  the  great  process  of  reconstruction  which  is  be- 
fore it.  Meanwhile,  in  its  activities,  it  will  proceed  upon 
these  two  lines;  the  influence  of  group  relationships  between 
the  nations  and  the  fundamental  processes  of  education,  and 
we  believe  that  this,  in  the  larger  sense  of  the  word,  is  a 
"constructive  work  for  peace." 


159 


Two  Successful  American   Models  for  Europe's 

Imitation 

Edward  Berwick 


A 


CCORDING  to  Longfellow 


"All  are  architects  of  Fate 
Working  in  the  Walls  of  Time," 


and  this  International  Peace  Congress  is  met  to-day  to  render  the 
foundation  of  those  walls  deeper,  broader,  more  secure;  and  to 
make  more  glorious  and  enduring  the  superstructure. 

To  this  end  I  bring  you  two  models.  Both  are  connected 
with  pictures  in  the  art  galleries  of  the  Panama-Pacific  Inter- 
national Exposition.  The  first,  by  an  artist,  appropriately 
named  Christmas,  represents  a  snowy  solitude  where  the 
distant  Andes  uprear  their  solid  bastions  to  the  skies.  A 
statue  of  "Christ  Victorious,"  forty  feet  high,  done  in  bronze, 
stands  in  that  solitude,  14,000  feet  above  sea  level. 

How  did  it  get  there,  and  why? 

The  story  is  something  as  follows : 

Posted  prominently  in  our  post  offices  and  railroad  cars  is 
an  adjuration — "Don't  Spit!     You  may  spread  disease!" 

Disease  germs — microbes — visible  when  magnified,  are 
wind  borne  from  the  dessicated  sputum  and  breed  tuberculo- 
sis, etc. 

There  is  another  class  of  these  germs,  yet  more  deadly, 
that  no  microscope  thus  far  has  shown. 

These  are  the  microbes  of  distrust,  suspicion,  fear  and 
hate.  They  breed  that  species  of  insanity  we  call  "War." 
The  agents  that  breed  and  spread  them  are  the  "Yellow 
Press,"  military  hierarchies,  armament  syndicates  and  others 
who  profit  by  human  slaughter. 

Over  a  decade  ago  these  microbes  were  flying  thick 
over  Argentina  and  Chili.  War  threatened — was  being  "pre- 
pared for." 

Fortunately,  in  both  countries  there  were  men  who  kept 
cool  heads  and  wiser  counsels. 

160 


This  was  the  situation.  Nations  distrust  and  suspect 
neighbors,  largely  because  they  do  not  know  them.  To  get 
better  acquainted  might  kill  these  microbes  of  fear  and  hate. 
War  would  increase  the  hatred,  waste  good  money,  involve 
both  in  debt,  destroy  their  young  and  vigorous  manhood, 
devastate  their  lands  and  breed  endless  wars.  What  worse 
could  they  do  with  their  men  and  money?    What  better? 

The  "Victorious  Christ"  statue  is  the  answer! 

They  agreed  to  build  a  railroad  through  the  14,000  feet 
high  Andes  mountain  chain,  so  as  to  get  better  acquainted,  to 
visit  and   do  business  together. 

The  cannon  they  were  to  kill  with  were  melted  down 
and  cast  into  this  colossal  image ;  while  graven  in  the  granite 
below  is  the  text :  "He  is  our  Peace  *  *  *  Who  hath  broken 
down  the  middle  wall  of  partition  between  us." 

Do  you  not  deem  that  a  good  model  for  Europe's  and 
America's  imitation? 

The  second  model  I  will  connect  with  the  portrait  by 
Chester  Harding,  (also  on  the  walls  of  the  P.  P.  I.  E.  Gallery), 
of  John  Randolph  of  Virginia. 

Over  one  hundred  years  ago,  in  1812,  there  was  imminent 
danger  of  war  between  the  United  States  of  America  and  Great 
Britain.  Randolph  saw  that  this  impending  war  was  likely  to 
be,  as  almost  all  wars  have  been  and  are,  needless,  undertaken 
too  hastily,  under  false  pretences,  likely  to  be  very  costly  and 
quite  inefifectual.  I  cannot  present  him  to  you  here  bodily,  but 
I  can  repeat  to  you  his  words  to  Congress  at  that  time.  He 
referred  to  the  "embargo"  and  "non-importation  acts"  as 
"impolitic  and  ruinous  measures,"  which  had  already  "knocked 
down  the  price  of  cotton  to  seven  cents  per  pound,  and  of 
tobacco  to  nothing;  while  they  have  raised  the  price  of  all 
articles  of  first  necessity  from  300  to  400  per  cent.  This  is  the 
condition  to  which  we  have  brought  ourselves  by  our  want  of 
wisdom!     But  is  war  the  true  remedy? 

"Who  will  profit  by  it?  Speculators,  commissioners,  con- 
tractors. Who  will  suffer  from  it?  The  people!  It  is  their 
blood,  their  tears,  that  must  flow  to  sustain  it !  Will  you  plunge 
this  nation  into  war  because  you  have  passed  a  foolish  and 
ruinous  measure,  and  are  ashamed  to  repeal  it?" 

161 


These  words  of  Randolph's  abundantly  prove  that  he  con- 
sidered the  war  of  1812  needless. 

Remembering  that  the  Treaty  of  Ghent,  which  was  supposed 
to  end  the  war,  was  signed  Christmas  Eve,  1814,  it  is  most 
obvious  that  the  bloodiest  battle  of  the  war,  fought  at  New 
Orleans  on  January  8,  1815,  was  utterly  needless.  Also  most 
certainly  needless  does  the  very  first  article  of  this  treaty  pro- 
claim the  war  to  have  been.  It  says  we  return  to  the  condition 
we  were  in  before  this  war  began.     {Status  quo  ante.) 

Nor  is  there  in  the  whole  parchment  any  phrase  telling  for 
what  the  peoples  were  contending. 

The  disposition  of  prizes  and  prisoners  of  war,  and  an  agree- 
ment to  settle  some  vexed  questions  of  boundry  on  a  basis  of 
justice  and  equity,  occupy  the  other  clauses. 

That  was  all! 

But  this  Treaty  of  Ghent  has  kept  the  peace  for  one  hundred 
years  between  two  great  nations. 

Why?  Not  so  much  for  what  it  contained  as  for  what  it 
did  not  contain! 

There  was  not  a  single  sentence  in  it  to  humiliate  either 
party.  There  was  no  cession  of  territory;  no  talk  of  any  cash 
indemnity;  no  "sitting  on  bayonets";  nothing  to  leave  a  sting  to 
rankle  and  call  for  revenge;  nothing  to  breed  future  wars. 

Moreover,  on  the  28th  of  April,  1818,  President  Monroe 
proclaimed  to  the  nation  how  he  had  reinforced  this  treaty  by 
the  "Rush-Bagot  arrangement."  This  "arrangement"  con- 
clusively shows  what  Monroe  meant  by  the  "Monroe  Doctrine," 
to  which  reference  is  often  made. 

Careful  readers  will  note  that  that  doctrine  was  aimed 
against  the  "European  System"  of  militarism  and  its  maxim,  "If 
You  Want  Peace,  Prepare  for  War." 

After  the  1812  war  was  ended  there  were  two  courses 
possible.  Monroe  might  have  followed  the  European  system  of 
wanting  peace  by  preparing  for  war.  In  this  case  he  would 
have  crowded  more  and  more  war  vessels  on  the  Great  Lakes 
and  fortified  and  garrisoned  our  northern  border.  He  did  just 
the  reverse.  He  inaugurated  a  new  system,  an  "American 
System,"  having  this  motto:  "If  You  Want  Peace  Prepare  for 
Peace." 

162 


Had  he  followed  the  European  system,  he  realized  there 
would  be  "vast  expense  incurred,"  and  the  "danger  of  collision 
increased" ;  while  the  rivalry  in  armaments  would  prove  a  "con- 
tinual stimulus  to  suspicion  and  ill-will."  So  he  proposed  his 
new  American  system  to  Great  Britain.  This  was  "to  abstain 
altogether  from  an  armed  force  beyond  that  used  for  revenue." 
Britain  for  many  months  refused  assent  to  his  views. 

Our  ambassador,  Adams,  after  talking  to  Lord  Castlereagh 
on  January  25,  1816,  wrote  that  Britain's  acceptance  of  the 
proposal  "appeared  hopeless."  Monroe,  however,  persisted. 
He  showed  that  the  "moral  and  political  tendency  of  such  a 
system  (the  old  European)  must  be  to  war  and  not  to  peace." 

Finally,  after  much  discussion,  good  sense  triumphed  over 
prejudice  and  precedent,  and  on  April  28,  1818,  Monroe  had  the 
satisfaction  of  proclaiming  to  our  nation  the  signing  of  the 
Rush-Bagot  arrangement,  by  which  the  contending  countries 
agreed  to  do  away  with  all  ships  of  war  on  the  Great  Lakes ;  any 
already  thereon  were  to  be  dismantled ;  any  in  course  of  building, 
converted  to  other  use;  and  only  four  little  revenue  cutters,  or 
patrol  vessels,  to  be  permitted  for  each  nation  on  the  entire 
river  and  lake  system. 

Through  a  further  "tacit  understanding"  no  additional  forts 
demarcate  the  frontier  lines.  The  success  of  this  American 
system,  this  Monroe  Doctrine,  is  as  obvious  as  it  was  inevitable. 
"Where  nobody  is  loaded,  nothing  explodes."  The  dove  of  peace 
settled  on  our  northern  border,  and  has  barely  ruffled  her  silver 
wings  in  a  century. 

It  is  the  spread  of  this  successful  system  that  must  rescue 
Europe  from  its  present  recrudescence  of  barbarism  now 
rushing  civilization  back  to  chaos. 

Does  not  this  successful  American  system,  with  its  motto, 
"If  you  want  Peace  prepare  for  Peace,"  strike  you  as  being  the 
only  correct  model,  with  the  only  correct  motto,  for  war-weary 
Europe  to  adopt,  and  for  this  favored  land  to  retain? 

To  me  it  appears  the  only  system,  the  only  motto,  worthy 
of  yourselves  as  individuals,  worthy  of  the  age  in  which  we 
live,  worthy  of  our  Starry-Spangled  Banner,  and  worthy  of  the 
God  we  love! 

We  have  been  trained  to  repeat  the  old  Latin  saying,  "It  is 
sweet  and  fitting  to  die  for  the  Fatherland !"    There  is  one  thing 

163 


far  more  necessary,  far  more  desirable,  far  more  difificult  than 
dying  for  one's  country;  that  is — to  Kve  for  it! 

The  greatest  triumph  of  the  age  "still  awaits  achievement 
by  humanity  and  for  humanity." 

What  is  it?  Simply  the  enthronement  of  the  idea  of  public 
right  as  the  governing  idea  in  world  politics. 

This  involves  three  things: 

1st.  The  utter  repudiation  of  militarism,  which  deifies 
robbery  and  murder,  and  has  turned  Europe's  fairest  fields  into 
one  vast,  bloody,  slaughter-pen  and  pestilential  charnel-house. 

2nd.  The  granting  of  all  nations,  even  the  smallest,  the 
right  of  self-government  and  of  the  "place  in  the  sun,"  that  in 
equity  is  theirs. 

3rd.  The  inauguration  of  some  sort  of  world-accord  in 
politics,  such  as  already  exists  in  the  universal  postal  union  and 
similar  institutions,  which  are  now  easily  possible  by  means  of 
our  improved  facilities  for  intercommunication. 

These  will  not  be  attained  in  a  day,  but  public  opinion  more 
and  more  rules  the  world,  and  you  and  I  can  help  give  it  a  trend 
in  the  right  direction. 

Do  you  say  it's  all  a  dream? 

"The  dreams  that  nations  dream  come  true, 
And  shape  the  earth  anew !" 


164 


The  Temperate  Americas   and   the  World's  Work 

Professor  Bailey  Willis 

AN  American  league  of  conciliation,  whose  aim  shall  be 
power,  police  and  peace,  is  my  theme.  Such  a  league  is 
foreshadowed  in  current  relations  among  American 
powers.  It  is  urged  upon  us  by  the  march  of  events  in  order 
that  we  may  collectively,  as  none  can  individually,  do  our  share 
of  the  world's  work.  The  world's  work  is  not  to-day  what  it  was 
recently.     It  has  suddenly  changed. 

Here  in  San  Francisco,  in  1906,  you  were  engaged  in 
building  up  the  metropolis  of  the  Pacific  coast;  developing  its 
commerce,  maintaining  the  rights  of  the  people  under  the  laws 
of  California  and  the  United  States,  educating  the  children,  who 
have  now  become  citizens  of  the  nation;  when  on  April  18th, 
through  earthquake  and  fire,  a  great  catastrophe  fell  upon  you. 
Your  city  was  practically  destroyed.  Your  work  was  changed 
from  building  up  to  rebuilding. 

The  people  of  San  Francisco  fell  into  three  classes — the 
great  mass,  absorbed  in  their  own  affairs  and  lacking  initiative; 
the  strong  leaders,  determined  on  maintaining  law  and  order, 
and  the  violent  elements,  prepared  to  take  life  if  necessary  to 
promote  their  selfish  ends.  Under  the  leaders  of  the  city  and  the 
country  order  was  restored.  Physical  force  was  used  under  the 
restraint  of  public  opinion  embodied  in  law,  and  the  law  was 
obeyed  because  there  was  power  behind  it,  the  moral  and  physical 
power  of  law-abiding  people. 

The  world  to-day  faces  a  situation  parallel  with  that  of 
San  Francisco  in  April,  1906,  after  the  earthquake  and  fire. 
A  dynastic  earthquake  of  extraordinary  violence  is  followed  by 
a  conflagration  that  involves  all  Europe  and  her  dependencies 
throughout  the  world.  The  Americas  and  Asia  are  scorched 
by  it.    The  world's  work  is  changed. 

When  Kipling  wrote  "The  White  Man's  Burden,"  he  voiced 
the  sense  of  higher  humanity,  which  realized  its  obligation  to 

165 


build  up  the  superstructure  of  organized  civilized  society  upon 
the  foundations  of  moral  principle  expressed  in  Christianity.  To- 
day that  superstructure  is  being  consumed  as  in  a  fiery  furnace 
and  the  very  foundations  have  been  shaken  by  the  earthquake. 
Violence,  in  the  guise  of  the  long  sanctioned  privilege  of  War, 
accorded  to  kings  and  nations,  sets  the  elemental  rights  of 
humanity   aside  and  breaks   every   law,   human   or   divine. 

What  are  we  going  to  do  about  it?  What  did  the  people 
of  San  Francisco  do?  They  organized  successfully  to  put  down 
violence.  What  did  the  people  of  Buenos  Aires  do  in  1910 
at  the  celebration  of  the  national  centennial  when  anarchists 
threatened  murder?     They   organized   and  put  down  violence. 

Let  me  take  another  illustration  from  the  history  of  Cali- 
fornia. In  1852  this  city  of  San  Francisco  had  through  the 
negligence  of  her  citizens  become  the  lair  of  violent  men. 
Thieves  and  murderers  feared  neither  police  nor  law.  When 
the  orderly  elements  of  the  population  realized  that  the  authori- 
ties could  not  or  would  not  keep  order,  they  organized  the 
Vigilance  Committee  to  protect  society. 

The  action  of  the  Vigilantes  differed  radically  from  the 
mob  violence  of  a  lynching  bee  in  that  they  dealt  openly  with 
criminals  according  to  the  spirit  as  well  as  the  forms  of  law 
and  they  publicly  assumed  responsibility  for  their  acts ;  and  it 
differed  from  a  Spanish-American  revolution  in  that  there  was 
no  revolt  against  established  government,  nor  seeking  of  partisan 
ends.  Having  too  long  been  negligent  and  neutral  in  the  affairs 
that  should  concern  citizens,  the  peaceful  elements  of  the  city 
were  obliged  to  fight  violence  by  extra  legal,  yet  in  the  eyes  of 
necessity,  lawful   force. 

Is  the  world's  situation  materially  different  to-day?  Are 
we  not  called  upon,  as  the  Vigilantes  were,  to  restore  order  by 
putting  down  violence? 

The  Vigilantes  were  merely  citizens  of  an  isolated  com- 
munity. We  are  citizens  of  the  world.  We  have  become  so 
whether  we  will  or  no  through  the  development  of  commerce, 
finance  and  intercourse,  and  of  the  conscience  of  humanity. 
Society  is  bound  together  the  world  over  by  mutual  interests 
and  mutual  obligations.  It  is  one  and  indissoluble.  War,  even 
such  as  is  being  waged  to-day,  cannot  destroy  the  material, 
intellectual  and  spiritual  bonds  that  bind  the  peoples  of  Europe, 

166 


among  themselves,  yes,  that  bind  them  with  all  other  peoples 
in  one  common  humanity  which  shares  a  common  fate.  Super- 
ficially it  may  seen  otherwise,  but  the  common  lot  of  humanity 
is  inexorably  conditioned  and  conditions  us.  We  cannot  escape 
its  obligations   or  consequences. 

While  this  has  always  been  true  in  principle,  it  has  not 
been  so  imperative  as  it  now  is.  Danger  and  disaster  draw 
men  together.  Menaced  by  militarism  humanity  awakens  to 
the  necessity  of  organizing  to  restore  and  maintain  peace. 

In  the  organization  of  the  Hague  tribunal  and  its  con- 
ferences, in  arbitration  treaties,  and  in  the  proposals  for  an 
international  court  of  conciliation,  the  first  groping  steps  were 
being  taken  in  the  dawn  of  peace  toward  the  United  States  of 
the  world,  when  Militarism  struck  Peace  a  staggering  blow. 
Shall  we  say  a  mortal  blow?  Never.  Whatever  the  next  few 
years  or  decades  may  bring,  the  striving  toward  universal  Peace 
through  the  federation  of  man  will  not  cease  until  its  aim  is 
attained. 

The  barons  who  wrung  the  English  Magna  Charta  from 
John,  the  miserable  representative  of  the  "divine  right"  of  kings, 
could  not  foresee  how  utterly  that  right  would  give  place 
to  the  common  rights  of  the  people.  Instead  of  kings,  it  is  now 
nations  who  assert  their  right  as  individuals  to  sacrifice  the 
people's  life  and  happiness  to  their  individual  ends.  We  have 
yet  to  win  the  Magna  Charta  of  humanity  from  them,  in  spite 
of  national  covetiousness,  pride  and  ambition. 

The  barons  did  not  compel  King  John  by  soft  persuasion, 
nor  will  the  militarists  yield  to  arguments  not  backed  by  power. 
There  must  be  power  behind  the  league  for  peace — power  ade- 
quate to  compel  peace. 

The  world's  work  that  is  now  imperative  in  America  is 
to  organize  a  league  of  those  American  republics  which  have 
demonstrated  their  capacity  to  act  temperately,  justly,  in  internal 
and  in  international  affairs. 

Temperate  is  a  term  that  may  well  be  applied  to  the  temper 
of  any  country  which,  having  world-wide  interests,  has  not  be- 
come involved  in  the  European  war.  The  power  of  restraint, 
under  the  gravest  provocation  to  fight,  has  seldom  been  ex- 
hibited by  any  government  as  it  has  by  the  United  States  during 
the  last  six  months.     We  have  been  temperate  also,  to  an  ex- 

167 


treiTie  degree  as  a  government,  in  our  attitude  toward  Mexico, 
watching  and  hoping  that  among  ambitious  chiefs  of  poHtical 
parties,  there  would  develop  a  man  great  enough  in  moral,  as 
well  as  in  personal  force,  to  solve  the  grave  economic  and  social 
problems  that  are  the  real  causes  of  the  struggle. 

The  sad  story  of  the  wars  is  too  immediate  in  our  daily  ex- 
perience to  require  any  statement.  It  goes  on  both  in  Europe 
and  Mexico  till  many  are  asking  what  avails  our  neutrality.  We 
preserve  for  ourselves  the  blessings  of  peace.  We  gain  in  the 
markets  of  war.  But — are  we  doing  our  share  in  playing  the 
part  of  bystanders  while  the  rights  of  humanity  are  being  trod- 
den under  foot  by  the  petty  Mexican  chiefs  and  the  all-power- 
ful miHtarist,  the  Kaiser?  I  have  often  had  my  doubts.  I  still 
feel  the  enthusiasm  which  led  our  forefathers  and  fathers  to 
fight  for  the  right  as  they  saw  it  and  I  chafe  under  our  temperate 
neutrality.  Not  for  glory,  not  for  conquest  would  I  fight,  but 
that  we  as  a  nation  might  not  seem  to  condone  monstrous  wrong. 
The  costs  of  unpreparedness,  fearful  as  the  experience  of  Bel- 
guim,  France,  and  England  proves  them  to  be,  should  not  deter 
us,  if  our  physical  resources  zvill  weigh  more  in  the  balance  for 
right  than  our  moral  force. 

Now  let  me  say  that  I  believe  in  physical  force  as  an  essen- 
tial basis  of  a  moral  argument.  Belgium  was  right  in  defending 
her  neutrality,  but  she  was  crushed  because  she  was  weak.  The 
minister  of  a  South  American  power  once  said  to  me:  "We 
respect  the  Monroe  Doctrine  because  it  has  a  hundred  million 
people  behind  it."  We  must  be  able  to  back  our  moral  purpose 
by  adequate  force  or  it  will  be  disregarded.  But  that  force  must 
itself  be  under  such  control  that  it  shall  do  no  wrong.  Further- 
more, it  must  be  demonstrated  to  the  w^orld  that  that  power  is, 
and  will  continue  to  be,  so  controlled.  Otherwise,  fear  will  follow 
rather  than  respect. 

Confidence,  the  cornerstone  of  commerce  and  finance,  is 
also  the  sole  foundation  of  international  amity,  and  the  confi- 
dence of  our  fellow  nations  is  more  necessary  to  us,  if  we  are 
to  play  a  truly  great  part  in  the  World's  Work,  than  the  power 
to  do  them  unlimited  harm. 

This  is  peculiarly  true  of  Pan-American  relations.  Let 
us  detatch  our  thought  a  moment  from  Europe  and  consider 
the  Americas.     During  the  past  five  years  it  has  been  my  privi- 

168 


lege  to  come  to  know  the  people  of  Argentina  and  Chile  through 
constant  personal  relations,  and  to  become  acquainted  with 
Brazilians  and  Peruvians.  A  dominant  feeling  among  them  is 
respect  for  our  ability  to  organize  and  carry  out  great  enter- 
prises, such  as  the  development  of  our  own  country  and  the 
building  of  the  Panama  Canal.  They  admire  the  practical  ability 
which  they  have  not  exhibited  to  the  same  degree.  With  that 
recognition  of  our  special  qualifications  for  a  conquest  of  Nature, 
the  more  timid  mingle  a  certain  distrust  that  we  may  conquer 
them.  Among  those  nations  that  are  near  and  weak,  the  distrust 
may  rise  to  fear.  With  those  that  are  strong  and  far  away  it  has 
much  less  influence.  The  Argentines  and  Chilians  do  not  fear 
us,  although  there  are  politicians  who  would  make  capital  out 
of  the  "North  American  Peril" — nor  do  Brazilians.  Never- 
theless we  cannot  afford  to  give  color  to  the  feeling  that  we  do 
not  intend  to  stop  at  Panama.  We  surely  would  have  given 
Spanish-Americans  cause  for  alarm,  had  we  intervened  forcibly 
to  restore  order  in  Mexico. 

The  attitude  of  the  United  States  toward  Mexico  is  more 
gravely  significant  because  nearly  all  Spanish- American  countries 
suffer  from  the  evils  that  have  occasioned  the  Mexican  civil  war. 
Land  monopoly  inherited  from  the  old  Spanish  grants,  intrenched 
bureauocracy  that  sucks  the  nation's  life  blood,  preferment  of 
individual  ambition  and  fortune  to  national  welfare,  and 
ignorance,  these  are  evils  that  throughout  Spanish-America  make 
self-government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  for  the  people,  a 
remote  aspiration  of  the  few  who  can  grasp  the  significance  of 
that  immortal  phrase. 

Omitting  Argentina,  Brazil,  and  Chile,  it  may  be  said  of 
all  other  Spanish-American  countries  that  Mexico  holds  up  the 
mirror  to  them;  her  revolution  is  an  echo  of  their  own  experi- 
ence which  they  may  at  any  time  suffer  again ;  and  her  recon- 
struction is  likely  to  be  a  prophecy  of  their  fate.  What  wonder, 
then,  if  they  view  the  action  of  the  United  States  toward  Mexico 
jealously  and  anxiously. 

The  World's  Work  in  the  Americas  deepens  in  gravity  when 
we  realize  that  Mexico  to-day  is  not  an  isolated  case,  but  a 
symptom  of  a  wide-spread  almost  chronic  disease. 

Bolivar,  the  Liberator,  foresaw  what  a  hundred  years  of 
misgovernment  has  demonstrated  in  the  Spanish-American  re- 

169 


publics  that  lie  within  the  tropics.  A  son  of  Venezuela,  he 
knew  the  character  of  the  tropical  peoples.  In  drawing  up  a 
constitution  for  the  United  States  of  Columbia,  he  proposed 
that  the  president  should  hold  office  for  life  and  should  select 
his  successor.  The  president  was  to  be  in  effect  a  constitutional 
monarch,  surrounded  by  the  safeguards  of  a  supreme  council 
and  a  national  legislature.  He  did  not  believe  that  his  people 
could  successfully  govern  themselves,  and  they  have  not.  The 
most  prosperous  epochs  in  the  history  of  the  tropical  republics 
have  been  those  of  government  by  a  dictator,  by  a  Diaz,  who 
approached   Bolivar's   ideal   of  an   independent   executive. 

San  Martin,  the  great  Argentine  co-liberator,  with  Bolivar 
of  the  Spanish  colonies  from  Spain,  believed,  on  the  other  hand, 
in  the  capacity  of  his  people  for  self-government.  He  fought 
for  their  freedom,  and  though  they  allowed  him  to  die  in  exile 
and  poverty,  they  are  at  last  tardily,  but  surely,  justifying  his 
faith  in  them.  Argentina  has  made  great  progress  toward  gov- 
ernment by  the  people,  in  that  she  has  developed  to  a  high 
degree  of  efficiency  the  public  school  system  introduced  by 
President  Sarmiento  from  the  United  States  half  a  century  ago ; 
and  recently  through  the  patriotic  statesmanship  of  President 
Saenz  Pena,  there  has  been  placed  among  her  statutes  an  effec- 
tive election  law  providing  for  registration  and  the  secret  ballot. 

Bolivar  and  San  Martin,  united  for  a  brief  space  in  their 
hour  of  victory,  were  parted  by  their  difference  of  faith  in  the 
people,  whom  they  each  judged  according  to  the  peoples  he 
knew  best.  They  both  have  been  justified.  The  American  re- 
publics fall  into  two  groups;  the  temperate  Americas  and  the 
intemperate. 

I  have  already  named  the  United  States  as  a  temperate 
power,  proved  by  her  conduct  under  the  gravest  provocation. 
Argentina  and  Chile  demonstrated  their  claim  to  the  title  of 
temperate  statesmanship  when  in  1902  they  arbitrated  their 
bitter  boundary  dispute  and,  in  token  of  lasting  peace,  set  the 
statue  of  Christ  between  them  on  the  crest  of  the  Andes. 
Brazil,  governed  in  national  affairs  by  the  more  intelligent  popu- 
lations settled  in  the  southeastern  upland,  joined  with  Argen- 
tina and  Chile  in  that  mediation  by  the  A.  B.  C.  powers  which 
so  recently  prevented  war  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico. 

These  are  the  four  great  powers  that  may  be  grouped  as 

170 


the  temperate  Americas,  the  A.  B.  C.  powers  and  the  United 
States  of  North  America.  I  would  not  be  understood  as  class- 
ing all  others  as  intemperate,  as  necessarily  inclined  to  revolu- 
tion, tyranny,  and  anarchy.  I  would  simply  appeal  to  the  his- 
tory of  each  and  ask  what  guarantee  does  it  give  that  you  have 
entered  upon  the  path  that  leads  to  just  government  by  the 
people?  And  whenever  any  nation  shall  have  demonstrated 
its  possession  of  that  self-control,  stability,  and  disinterested- 
ness which  would  entitle  it  to  a  place  in  the  group  of  temperate 
powers,  it  should  be  admitted  to  their  brotherhood. 

The  establishment  of  just  governments,  the  prohibition  of 
tyranny  and  anarchy,  these  are  the  tasks  that  confront  the 
Americas  to-day,  and  we,  citizens  of  the  temperate  Americas, 
are  not  justified  in  saying  to  our  less  fortunate  neighbors :  "See 
what  we  have  done,  go  thou  and  do  likewise."  No.  With  the 
example  must  go  the  helping  hand.  As  the  United  States 
stretched  out  that  hand  to  oppressed  Cuba,  as  the  A.  B.  C. 
powers  gave  the  aid  of  mediation  to  Mexico  and  the  United 
States,  so  the  American  league  of  conciliation  and  good  govern- 
ment will  steady  and  support  the  unstable  governments  that 
mock  the  name  of  republics. 

I  do  not  prophesy.  I  call  attention  to  the  relations  that 
are  developing  under  the  dominant  forces  of  mutual  interests 
and  common  peril.  The  peril  of  war  menaces  us  all.  The 
mutual  interests  of  peace  already  unite  us  in  Pan-American 
discussions  and  congresses.  The  A.  B.  C.  mediation  has  be- 
come history.  The  Financial  Congress  of  last  June  promoted 
a  common  understanding  throughout  the  Pan-American  financial 
world.  The  Pan-American  scientific  congress  that  is  soon  to 
meet,  will  draw  students  and  thinkers  from  all  over  the  New 
World.  Hundreds  of  travelers  passing  between  the  ports  of 
the  Americas  gain  that  better  knowledge  of  how  the  other  half 
lives  and  thinks,  which  leads  to  friendly  intercourse.  Slowly, 
but  surely,  we  are  weaving  the  bonds  of  union  that  shall  bind 
the  Americas  together  in  a  league  of  peace  that  shall  put  down 
violence   and   promote  good   government. 

The  United  States  will  bring  to  that  league  her  enormous 
material  resources  and  the  pre-eminence  she  is  gaining  in  the 
financial  world.  She  brings  also  the  demonstration  of  success- 
ful self-government  by  an  educated,  sober  people,  ruled  by  com- 

171 


mon  sense.  But  her  power  and  her  success  are  in  themselves 
obstacles  to  that  confidence  on  the  part  of  weaker  nations  with 
whom  she  must  co-operate.  She  must  constantly  demonstrate 
her  sincerity  in  striving  to  promote  peace  for  the  gains  of  peace 
alone. 

In  the  effort  to  command  the  confidence  of  those  Spanish- 
American  countries  which  see  themselves  reflected  in  the  Mexi- 
can mirror,  the  association  with  Argentina,  Brazil,  and  Chile 
is  of  inestimable  value  to  her.  A  league  of  the  four  great 
American  powers  can  control  the  destinies  of  the  Americas, 
can  banish  war  from  the  New  World,  and  can  insure  to  each  and 
every  independent  republic  that  degree  of  prosperity  which  its 
people,  undisturbed  by  strife,  may  be  fitted  to  enjoy. 

To  accomplish  these  ends  we  require  mutual  confidence, 
which  is  growing;  the  power  which  springs  from  confidence 
and  co-operation ;  the  organization  based  on  confidence  and 
power,  which  shall  constitute  a  Pan-American  police  force;  the 
law  which  shall  restrain  that  force  to  the  performance  of  its 
appropriate  duties ;  and  the  moral  sentiment  of  the  Pan-American 
peoples,  from  which  the  law  shall  spring  and  by  which  the  force 
shall  be  directed. 

We  need  never  expect  unanimous  agreement  to  such  a  plan. 
But  in  the  society  of  nations,  as  well  as  within  each  nation, 
the  majority  should  rule.  It  is  time  that  our  relations  in  the 
Americas  were  governed  by  the  power  of  the  enlightened  major- 
ity directing  an  international  police  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
integrity  of  every  republic,  and  the  perpetuation  of  the  blessings 
of  peace. 


172 


The  Treaty   of  Ghent  and   the  Hundred  Years   of 

Peace 

Bishop  Edwin  H.  Hughes 

1"^HE  signing  of  the  Treaty  of  Ghent  was  followed  by  several 
remarkable  movements  toward  peace.  This  was  not  simply 
because  the  people  were  wearied  by  the  wars  of  the  period, 
but  also  because  thoughtful  men  studied  the  beginnings  of  the  War 
of  1812,  and  read  the  treaty  that  ended  that  war,  and  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  struggle  had  been  needless.  When  men  have 
expended  blood  and  treasure  in  a  lavish  way,  and  then  later 
awake  to  the  realization  that  all  the  mournful  sacrifice  could 
have  been  avoided,  it  is  slight  wonder  that  they  at  once  look 
for  better  and  more  reasonable  methods  of  settling  international 
difficulties.  Presuming  that  the  War  of  1812  was  somewhat 
typical  of  our  international  struggles,  we  are  allowed  to  draw 
four  very  plain  lessons  and  add  them  to  the  text-books  of  the 
peace  movement : 

1.  The  first  is  that  of  the  needlessness  of  war,  if  preju- 
dice be  absent  and  steadiness  and  strength  be  in  control.  On 
our  side  the  program  for  war  was  handled  largely  by  impetuous 
young  men.  Henry  Clay  was  Speaker  of  the  House.  He  was 
but  thirty-five  years  of  age.  John  C.  Calhoun  was  chairman 
of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  He  was  but  thirty 
years  old.  These  men  and  their  compatriots  rather  prided  them- 
selves on  the  fact  that  they  had  not  been  born  as  colonial  Ameri- 
cans, but  rather  had  come  as  native  citizens  of  the  New  Re- 
public. Henry  Clay  bore  the  suggestive  nickname  of  "War 
Hawk,"  and  was  fond  of  the  bellicose  statement  that  a  few 
K-entuckians  would  have  no  difficulty  in  defeating  England. 
Old  men  are  sometimes  needed  for  the  counsels  that  prevent 
war.  In  this  case  the  impetuosity  of  youth  played  its  big  part 
in  bringing  on  a  needless  struggle. 

In  addition  to  this,  prejudice  was  a  companion  cause.  So 
far  as  we  can  now  judge,  we  had  as  much  reason  for  war  with 
France  as  we  had  for  war  with  England.     But  our  old  hatred, 

173 


growing  out  of  the  colonial  differences  and  from  the  conflict  of 
1775,  led  us  to  choose  Great  Britain  as  our  antagonist.  Ac- 
counts very  generally  agree  that  the  war  never  should  have 
occurred.  The  vote  in  the  House  stood  79  to  49.  The  vote  in 
the  Senate  stood  19  to  13.  These  were  narrow  margins  upon 
which  to  proceed  into  a  bloody  struggle.  The  mood  of  the 
Hartford  Convention  shows  that  the  war  lacked  popular  sup- 
port— largely  because  the  people  felt  that  they  had  been  rushed 
into  the  unnecessary  shedding  of  blood.  What  marvel,  then, 
that  the  War  of  1812  was  followed  by  a  vigorous  peace  move- 
ment when  men  of  level  minds  were  compelled  to  believe  that, 
if  prejudice  had  been  put  aside  and  maturity  had  been  on  hand, 
all  the  struggle  would  have  been  avoided! 

2.  The  second  lesson  was  that  all  the  real  problems  of 
the  war  had  finally  to  be  transferred  to  tribunals  that  could 
better  have  been  used  before  there  was  any  war!  The  Treaty 
of  Ghent  did  not  even  mention  the  big  issues  for  which  the 
conflict  was  waged.  It  contained  no  word  about  the  impress- 
ment of  seamen,  or  the  Newfoundland  fisheries,  or  naval  forces 
on  the  Northern  Lakes,  or  the  rights  of  neutrals.  These  had 
all  been  settled  by  the  logic  of  events,  or  else  were  turned  over 
for  settlement  to  the  tribunals  of  peace.  Probably  the  most  sig- 
nificant thing  in  the  treaty  was  its  reference  to  the  slave  trade 
as  "irreconcilable  with  the  principles  of  justice  and  humanity." 
Yet  the  slavery  issue  was  not  really  involved  in  the  main  con- 
test. It  was  hardly  possible  that  the  level  minds  of  the  period 
should  not  have  concluded  that,  if  the  question  had  to  be  re- 
ferred to  peaceful  negotiation  after  all,  it  was  better  that  every 
such  matter  be  referred  to  reasonable  courts  prior  to  the  shed- 
ding of  blood. 

3.  The  third  lesson  relates  to  the  influence  of  democracy, 
both  as  a  bringer  of  peace  and  as  a  preventer  of  war.  We  give 
now  no  hard-and-fast  definition  of  democracy.  It  is  often  claimed 
by  our  friends  who  live  under  a  limited  monarchy  that  they 
have  as  much  democracy  as  do  the  people  of  the  United  States. 
Democracy  here  refers  simply  to  some  proper  expression  of 
public  opinion  ere  the  people  who  must  bear  the  burdens  and 
shed  the  blood  are  exploited  by  the  captains  of  militarism. 
Mrs.  Browning  intimates  this  in  her  passage  in  "Aurora  Leigh" : 

174 


"This  Caesar  represents,  not  reigns, 
And  is  no  despot,  though  twice  absolute ; 
This  head  has  all  the  people  for  a  heart ; 
The  purple's  lined  with  the  democracy." 

It  is  certainly  not  too  much  to  ask  that  the  people  be  heard 
from  ere  the  people  be  sacrificed! 

But  the  truth  is  that  war  thrives  by  means  of  autocracy. 
Who  believes  that  Europe  would  be  so  terribly  embroiled  to- 
day if  there  had  been  a  chance  for  the  sober  and  deliberate  ex- 
pression of  public  opinion?  One  might  say  that  the  war  began 
with  the  assassination  of  a  member  of  a  royal  family;  that  four 
monarchies  entered  the  maelstrom  ere  one  republic  came;  that 
England,  with  her  larger  democratic  expression,  came  late  into 
the  fray;  that  Italy  came  still  later  because  she  waited  for  the 
sure  voice  of  her  people,  and  that  the  Swiss  Republic  still  remains 
at  peace  among  her  mountains.  Modify  and  discount  all  the 
statements  as  we  may,  they  are  at  least  suggestive.  It  may  be 
that  the  cure  of  war  is  more  democracy.  It  may  even  be  that 
the  best  available  peace  movement  would  be  an  agreement  among 
the  great  nations  that  no  war  would  be  prosecuted  without  an 
expression  of  popular  opinion  at  the  polls — with  a  provision  for 
mediation  in  case  one  or  both  voted  for  the  struggle!  If  all 
this  seems  chimerical,  it  is  none  the  less  the  logical  extension 
of  democracy.  Surely  it  is  more  reasonable  than  it  is  to  claim 
that  the  lives  of  millions  should  be  at  the  mercy  of  a  small  inner 
council,  and  that  the  only  attitude  of  the  people  should  be  "not 
to  reason  why,"  but  merely  "to  do  and  die." 

Beyond  this  it  would  seem  that  an  army  in  its  very  organi- 
zation must  be  the  veriest  denial  of  democracy.  The  absolute 
monarch  of  our  day  is  not  a  king;  he  is  an  officer!  The  spirit 
works  even  into  the  social  life  of  military  organization.  If  an 
officer  of  rank  shall  marry  the  daughter  of  a  corporal  or 
sergeant,  let  him  prepare  himself  for  ostracism.  If  Gunner 
Morgan  is  proposed  for  advancement,  let  an  admiral  object  on 
the  ground  that  the  commission  would  offend  social  standards! 
All  this  makes  it  appear  that  there  is  a  contradiction  between 
militarism  and  democracy.  If  pure  democracy  gets  a  chance  at 
war,  war  will  have  its  biggest  battle  in  keeping  its  place  on  the 
earth.  When  the  commissioners,  to  negotiate  terms  of  peace,  sent 
word  that  peace  seemed  out  of  the  question,  the  pressure  of 

175 


popular  opinion,  both  in  England  and  in  the  United  States,  made 
itself  felt.  The  hands  of  the  millions  wrote  the  Treaty  of 
Ghent.  It  was  a  very  democratic  document,  and  one  of  its 
lessons  was  that  democracy  would  usually  be  the  foe  of  war. 

4.  The  fourth  lesson  of  the  treaty  and  the  century  of 
peace  relates  to  the  power  of  fundamental  friendship  to  stand 
the  strain  of  serious  issues.  It  would  appear  that  we  have  had 
more  opportunities  for  war  with  Great  Britain  than  we  have 
had  with  any  other  people;  yet  our  friendship  has  been  equal 
to  many  crises.  Not  less  than  seven  serious  questions  have 
tested  these  hundred  years.  First  there  came  the  controversy 
with  reference  to  the  northeastern  boundary,  settled  by  the 
Webster-Ashburton  Treaty.  Second  came  the  northwestern 
boundary  question,  expressed  in  the  fervent  cry,  "Fifty-Four- 
Forty  or  Fight !"  Well,  we  made  it  fifty-nine,  and  we  did 
not  fight  at  all!  Third  came  the  Trent  affair  laden  with 
portentous  possibilities.  Fourth  came  the  Alabama  Claims, 
settled  by  a  court  of  peace.  Fifth  came  the  Mixed  Commission, 
that  grew  out  of  the  Alabama  agitation.  This  commission  settled 
the  demands  of  478  British  subjects  and  of  nineteen  American 
subjects.  Who  to-day  hears  talk  of  any  national  humiliation 
involved  in  the  closing  of  only  three  short  of  five  hundred  ques- 
tions? Sixth  came  the  Venezuela  controversy,  handled  at  last 
with  rare  consideration  on  both  sides  of  the  sea.  Seventh  was 
the  Behring  Sea  dispute,  and  out  of  it  came  the  conviction  that 
two  peoples,  fundamentally  friendly,  could  not  be  driven  to 
bloody  strife  with  reference  to  kettles  of  fish.  Surely  these 
seven  matters,  and  other  minor  and  yet  acute  issues,  have  proven 
the  power  of  international  friendship  to  endure  the  heaviest 
strains. 

Good  men  and  women  who  contemplate  the  four  facts  now 
recounted  can  scarcely  avoid  the  right  answer  to  the  question, 
If  it  has  been  thus  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States 
for  more  than  a  century,  why  may  not  this  gracious  interrela- 
tion be  given  its  world-wide  application?  Why  may  we  not 
bring  in  the  fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  in  Dr.  Sears'  hymn? 

"When  peace  shall  over  all  the  world 

Its  ancient  splendors  fling. 
And  the  whole  world  give  back  the  song 
Which  now  the  angels  sing." 

176 


OFFICERS    AND    COMMITTEES 


Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan,  President 

H.  H.  Bell  and  Robert  C.  Root,  Joint  Secretaries 

Captain  Robert  Dollar,  Treasurer 


Judge  W.  W.  Morrow 
Hon.  James  Rolph,  Jr. 
Archbishop  Edward  J.  Hanna 
Bishop  William  Ford  Nichols 
W.  Almont  Gates 


Vice-Presidents 

Mrs.  John  F.  Merrill 
Rev.  Charles  F.  Aked 
Bishop  Edwin  H.  Hughes 
Professor  George  M.  Stratton 
William  C.  Allen 


Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan 
President  Benjamin  Ide  Wheeler 
Judge  W.  W.  Morrow 
Mrs.  Henry  Payot 
Mrs.  A.  P.  Black 
Captain  Robert  Dollar 
Senator  James  D.  Phelan 

Executive    Committee 
President  Benjamin  Ide  Wheeler 
Harris  Weinstock 


Board  of  Directors 

Walter  MacArthur 
Rabbi  Martin  A.  Meyer 
Will  J.  French 
Dr.  H.  H.  Bell 
Harris  Weinstock 
C.  H.  Bentley 
Robert  C.  Root 


Will  J.  French 
Mrs.  A.  P.  Black 
Dr.  H.  H.  Bell 

W.  H.  Crocker 
Raphael  Weill 
Captain  Robert  Dollar 
Horace  Davis 
Mrs.   Henry  Payot 

Dr.  Philip  Andreen 
William   C.   Allen 
Mrs.  Percy  L.  Shuman 
Miss  Ada  Goldsmith 


Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan 
Judge  W.  W.  Morrow 
Robert  C.  Root 
Captain   Robert  Dollar 


Fred  G.  Athearn 

Mrs.  J.  W.  Orr 

Professor  A.  L.  Chamberlain 

Dr.  F.  M.  Larkin 

Rev.  W.  E.  Vaughn 

John  P.  Young 

F.  W.  Kellogg 

C.  S.  Stanton 


Finance  Committee 

A.  J.  Gallagher 

Hon.  William  Kent,  M.C. 

Walter  E.  Vail 

I.  H.  Morse 

Rev.  D.  O.  Crowley 

Membership  Committee 

Dr.  H.  B.  Johnson 
2vlrs.  E.  G.  Denniston 
Dean  J.  Wilmer  Gresham 
Rev.  George  W.  Hinman 

Publicity   Committee 

Fremont  Older 
James  H.  Barry 
Alfred  H.  Holman 
Francis  B.  Loomis 
Miss   Ella  Schooley 
Rev.  W,  W.  Ferrier 
Rev.  F.  H.  Church 


177 


DELEGATES   AND   ORGANIZATIONS 
Arizona 
Appointed  by  Governor  of  Arizona. 

Hon.  William  Jennings  Bryan,  Jr.,  Tucson,  Ariz. 

Dr.  A.  D.  Maisch,  Auditorium  Building,  Los  Angeles,  Cal, 

Mrs.  Florence  Granger,  Kingman,  Ariz. 

California 

San  Francisco  Commercial  Club, 
Mr.  Louis  Block,  310  Sansome  Street. 
Mr.  Arthur  M.  Brown,  Pine  and  Sansome  Streets. 
Mr.  R.  J.  Tyson,  Seaboard  National  Bank. 

P.  P.  I.  E.  International  Conference  of  Women  Workers. 

Mrs.  May  Wright  Sewell,  1401  Hyde  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Appointed  by  W.  C.  T.  U. 
Mrs.  Elizabeth  H.  Parish,  1748  Ninth  Avenue,  E.  Oakland,  Cal. 
Mrs.  Sara  J.  Dorr,  706  Emory  Street,  San  Jose,  Cal. 
Mrs.  Mary  E.  Garbutt,  2110  Ocean  View  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

Tuesday  Club,  Berkeley  Chamber  of  Commerce. 
Mr.  A.  A.  Goddard,  Sacramento,  Cal. 
Mr.  Addison  W.  Naylor,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Representing  To  Kalon  Club. 
Mr.  R.  Cadwallader,   1155  Geary  Street,  San  Francisco,   Cal. 
Henry  Thompson,  2921  Scott  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Miss  Mary  L.  Sweeney,  2699  California  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Caleb  A.  Ensign,  375  61st  Street,  Oakland,  Cal. 
Rev.  B.  S.  John,  Benicia,  Cal. 

Miss  A.  I.  Galbraith,  2819  Garber  Street,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Mrs.  E.  C.  Galbraith,  2627  Channing  Way,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Mr.  Nicholas  E.  Boyd,  2823  Garbel  Street,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
John  Aubrey  Jones,  1610  28th  Avenue,  Oakland,  Cal. 
Rev.  R.  M.  Stevenson,  Fair  Oaks,  Cal. 

Miss  F.  A.  Ritchie,  721  San  Jose  Avenue,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
J.  A.  DeRosa,  1044  Page  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Dr.  C.  C.  Pierce,  216  W.  23rd  Street,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 
Mrs.  C  C.  Pierce,  216  W.  23rd  Street,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

Represented     General     Federation     Women's     Clubs     and     Chairman 
Women's  Peace  Party,  Northern  California. 
Mrs.  C.  E.  Cumberson,  251  Hamilton  Avenue,  Palo  Alto,  Cal. 
Mrs.  Mary  E.  Garbutt,  2110  Ocean  View  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

Represented  National  W.  C.  T.  U.  and  Southern  California. 
Mrs.  Mabelle  Frances,  2610  W.  Ave  31,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

178 


Represented  Channing  Auxiliary,  Unitarian  Church,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mrs.  Samuel  W.  Cowles,  1200  Taylor  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Dr.  F.  A.  C.  Crown,  3618  Alum  Rock  Avenue,  San  Jose,  Cal. 
Rev.  H.  B.  Johnson,  D.D.,  2634  Benvenue  Avenue,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
S.  P.  Wiley,  Flatiron  Building,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
P.  G.  Agnew,  965  Geary  Street,  Apartment  3,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
J.  M.  Hahn,  2161  Shattuck  Avenue,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Mrs.  A.  M.  Lowrie,  Arthur  Apartments,  Jones  and  Post  Streets,  San 

Francisco,  Cal. 
Frank  W.  Gale,  2211  California  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
John  C.  Davidson,  729  Market  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mrs.  C.  Johnson,  56  Bartlett  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mrs.  J.  Johnson,  30  Valley  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Rolla  V.  Watt,  1  Baker  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 


Represented    International    Peace    and    Arbitration    Society,    London, 
England. 
Edwin  Berwick,  Pacific  Grove,  Cal. 
Mrs.  Edward  Berwick,  Pacific  Grove,  Cal. 
W.  H.  McDougal,  Belmont,  Cal. 

Miss  Nellie  Gordon,  149  Hickery  Avenue,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Colonel  W.  A.  Glassford,  Army  Headquarters,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Hon.  Francis  B.  Loomis,  Delegate,  Oakland  Chamber  of  Commerce, 

Burlingame,  Cal. 
J.  L.  F.  McLain,  General  Delivery,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
C.  Tobson,  3120  16th  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
B.  Waters,  Warren  Apartments,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Miss   M.   Delaney,   President   Civic   Center,   2946   Pierce    Street,    San 

Francisco,  Cal. 
Mrs.  C.  S.  Aiken,  2376  Pacific  Avenue,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mrs.  Anna  Casey,  Loyalton,  Cal. 
Mr.  J.  D.  Lord,  1521  I  Street,  Sacramento,  Cal. 
Rev.  Abel  Eklund,  2223  Atherton  Street,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Mr.  Sebastian  Dabovitch,  2601  Tenth  Avenue,  Oakland,  Cal. 
Rev.  J.  H.  Kevan,  1635  Euclid  Avenue,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Mr.  D.  J.  Wood,  Denair,  Stanislaus  County,  Cal. 
Mr.  A.  G.  Holloway,  1704  Walnut  Street,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Miss  S.  R.  Glenn,  2502  California  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mr.  I.  Steinhart,  942  Sutter  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mr.  G.  R.  Noys,  1434  Greenwood  Terrace,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Mr.  Theodore  Johnson,*  2940  16th  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mr.  Selig  Schuberg,*  2940  16th  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mr.  L.  P.  Fulmer,  2441  Russell  Street,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Mrs.  Alice  Adams  Church,  22235^  Chapel  Street,  Berkeley,  Cal. 


*Delegate  and  Representative,  San  Francisco  Labor  Council. 

179 


Represented  Congregational  Church. 
Mr.  Thomas  M.  Leneweaver,  Cal. 

Mr   F.  L.  Hossack,*  421  W.  31st  Street,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 
Mr.  L.  Rhodes,  Peniel  Hall,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 
Mr.    Melborne    Watson    Graham,   Jr.,   383    Arguello    Boulevard,    San 

Francisco,  Cal. 
Mrs.  J.  E.  Cowles,  1101  West  Adams,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 
Mrs.  J.  E.  Cowles,  1101  West  Adams  Street.  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 
Miss  A.  L.  Gansner,  Quincy,  Cal. 

Kimball  Geshee  Easton,  2801  College  Avenue,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Miss  M.  M.  Treideurich,  2969  Pacific  Avenue,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mr.  W.  S.  Vauerburgh,  2521  Octavia  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mr.  K.  S.  Imse,  1310  Leavenworth  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Miss  H.  E.  Reed,  29  Parker  Avenue,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Miss  M.  MacMillan,  1159  O'Farrell  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Miss  Florence  M.  Leavy,  2221  California  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mrs.  M.  M.  Frederick,  2152  Sutter  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 


Representing  County  W.  C.  T.  U. 
Mrs.  Margaret  H.  Wood,  Denair,  Cal. 

Rev.  E.  L.  Parsons,  D.D.,  2732  Durant  Avenue,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Mrs.  S.  M.  Richardson,  841   Phelan  Building,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Madame  Marie  Light  Plise,  567  Fifth  Avenue,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mrs.  E.  A.  Stone,  4654  Sebastian  Avenue,  Oakland,  Cal. 
Miss  A.  M.  Hicks,  2505  College  Avenue,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Mrs.  Anna  R.  Spence,  1560  Sacramento  Avenue,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Miss  Florence  Van  Goasbeck,  654  13th  Street,  Oakland,  Cal. 
Mrs.  A.  John  Aicher,  1564  Larkin  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Miss  Margaret  E.  Cooley,  2610  Dwight  Way,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Robert  M.  Hunter,  518  62nd  Street,  Oakland,  Cal. 
Mrs.  A.  Y.  Reed,  29  Parker  Avenue,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mrs.  Woodsen  Allen,  2718  Webster  Street,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Mr.  R.  S.  Richart,  1250  Hyde  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mr.  C.  W.  Kendall,  Encinal  Apartments,  Oakland,  Cal. 
Rev.  A.  J.  Weaver,  2130  Channing  Way,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Judge  W.  W.  Morrow,  United  States  Court  Building,  San  Francisco, 

Cal. 
Miss  Adelhide  Kuck,  2276  75th  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mrs.  Eliza  Turcker  Wilkes.f  690  Irolo  Street,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 
Mrs.  Elinor  H.  Graham,  383  Arguello  Boulevard,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
Mrs.  E.  H.  Pierce,  2471  Woolsey  Street,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
Mrs.  Edwin  E.  Cox,  2619  Etna  Street,  Berkeley,   Cal. 


♦Represented  Japanese-American  League. 
tDelegate,  Tuesday  Morning  Club. 

180 


Delegates  from  Trinity  Presbyterian  Church. 
Messrs.  M,  R.  Forsey,  3841a  20th  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
C.  Linn,  1528  Guerrero  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 
A.  Van  Pelt,  3779  25th  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Delegates    to    Peace    Congress   from    California    Yearly    Meeting    of 
Friends  Church. 

Rev.  Levi  Gregory,  Oakland,  Cal. 
Robert  C.  Root,  Berkeley,  Cal. 


Colorado 

Armour  C.  Anderson,  1433  Tremont  Street,  Denver,  Colo. 

Dr.  James  H.  Baker,  980  Marion  Street,  Denver,  Colo. 

R.  W.  Corwin,  Pueblo,  Colo. 

L.  M.  Cuthbert,  1st  National  Bank  Building,  Denver,  Colo. 

Andrew  C.  Carson,  Orpheum  Theatre,  Denver,  Colo. 

Rev.  William  S.  Friedman,  733  E.  Eight  Avenue,  Denver,  Colo. 

E.  B.  Hendrie,  1621  Wyncoop  Street,  Denver,  Colo. 

Rev.  J.  H.  Houghton,  1343  Vine  Street,  Denver,  Colo. 

Judge  A.  R.  King,  University  Park,  Colo. 

Mr.  Frank  McLaughlin,  630  Symes  Building,  Denver,  Colo. 

E.  A.  Peters,*  1625  Wazee  Street,  Denver,  Colo. 
Lawrence  C.  Phipps,  1154  Colfax  Avenue,  Denver,  Colo. 
Verner  Z.  Reed,  1227  1st  National  Bank  Building,  Denver,  Colo. 
Piatt  Rogers,*  403  McPhee  Building,  Denver,  Colo. 

F.  W.  Sanborn,  707  E  &  C  Building,  Denver,  Colo. 
Dr.  William  F.  Slocum,  Colorado  Springs,  Colo. 

Dr.  William  H.  Smiley,  1115  Race  Street,  Denver,  Colo. 

Theodore  G.  Smith,  International  Trust  Company,  Denver,  Colo. 

Wardner  Williams,  Pueblo,  Colo. 

S.  Harrison  White,  Capitol,  Denver,  Colo. 

Edward  J.  Yetter,  Chamber  of  Commerce,  Denver,  Colo. 

Rev.  John  H.  Houghton,  LL.D.,  Rector  St.  Marks,  Denver,  Colo. 

Bishop  F.  J.  McConnell,  964  Logan  Street,  Denver,  Colo. 

TOWA 

Appointed  by  Clinton  Commercial  Club. 
Mr.  G.  E.  Wilson,  Sr.,  Clinton,  la. 
Mr.  Woodworth  Clum,  Clinton,  la. 

Representing  World's  Insurance  Congress. 
Mr.  H.  B.  Hawley,  Des  Moines,  la. 


♦Delegates  appointed  from  the  State  of  Colorado  to  the  International 
Peace  Congress. 

181 


Indiana 

Rev.  A.  J.  Weaver,*  Pastor  Friends'  Church,  Berkeley,  Cal. 
L.  Hollingsworth,  43  Cedar  Street,  New  York  City,  N.  Y. 

Kentucky 
Appointed  by  Governor  of  Kentucky  for  Peace  Congress. 
Hon.  J.  N.  Camden,  Versailles,  Ky. 
Hon.  George  C.  Webb,  Lexington,  Ky. 
General  John  B.  Castleman,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Hon.  J.  Embry  Allen,  Lexington,  Ky. 
Colonel  William  A.  Colson,  Louisville,  Ky. 
Colonel    Jouett  Henry,  Hopkinsville,  Ky. 
Hon.  John  W.  Colyar,  Somerset,  Ky. 
Colonel    C.  W.  Metcalf,  Pineville,  Ky. 
Hon.  S.  W.  Hager,  Owensboro,  Ky. 
Dr.  J.  W.  Naylor,  Cayce,  Ky. 

New  Mexico 
Appointed  by  Governor  of  New  Mexico. 
Hon.  Antonio  Lucero,  Santa  Fe,  N.  M. 
Hon.  Frank  Springer,  Las  Vegas,  N.  M. 
Hon.  Hiram  Hadley,  Masilla  Park,  N.  M. 
Mr.  Lytton  R.  S.  Taylor,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 
Mr.  Donald  Young,  Las  Cruces,  N.  M. 

Ohio 
Appointed  by  The  Arbitration  and  Peace  Society  of  Cincinnati. 
E.  P.  Marshall,  Union  Central  Building,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 
E.  Jay  Wohlgemuth,  403  Lincoln  Inn  Court,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 
Mr.  Nelson  Purdon,  Chillicothe,  Ohio. 
(Mr.  Marshall  will  not  attend;  Mr.  Wohlgemuth  may.) 

Nevada 

Bishop  G.  C.  Hunting,  Reno,  Nev. 

Florida 

L  Rasmussen,  c/o  O.  Peterson,  Daia,  Fla. 

New  Hampshire 

Sumner  F.  Claflin,  Manchester,  N.  H. 

Missouri 

J.  W.  Beach,  Delegate,  Chamber  of  Commerce,  1209  Silvanie  Street, 
St.  Joseph,  Mo. 


♦Appointed   by    Friends'    Peace    Association    in   America. 

182 


Utah 
Representing  State  of  Utah. 
Andrew  Jenson,  154  North  Second,  W.,  Salt  Lake,  Utah. 

Oregon 

Rev.  John  T.  Hanson,  791  E.  Main  Street,  Portland,  Ore. 
Miss  M.  B.  Cridge,  954  E.  22nd  Street,  North  Portland,  Ore. 
Dr.  T.  L.  Elliott,  Portland,  Ore. 

Montana 

Mrs.  Donald  McLeod,  Harve,  Mont. 

Japan 

Mr.  Chozo  Muto,  Higher  Commercial  School,  Nagasaki,  Japan. 

England 

Miss  Chrystal  McMillan,  46  Granley  Gardens,  London,  England. 

Holland 

The    International    Committee    of    Women    for    Permanent    Peace, 
Keisergrachy,  467,  Amsterdam,  Holland. 

Hawaii 

Mr.  James  L.  Coke,  Honolulu,  T.  H. 
Mr.  Gerritt  Wilder,  Honolulu,  T.  H. 

District  of  Columbia 

Dr.  Carlos  Ellin,  W.  S.  Forest  Science,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Cal.  Robert  M.  Thompson,  1607  23rd  Street,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Hon.  Walter  Scott  Penfield,  Colorado  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Massachusetts 

Mrs.  Edwin  D.  Mead,  39  Newberry  Street,  Boston,  Mass. 

South  Dakota 
Appointed  by  Sotith  Dakota  Peace  Society  for  the  International  Peace 
Congress. 
Dr.  Gage,  Huron,  S.  D. 
Dr.  Seaton,  Mitchell,  S.  D. 
Rev.  F.  J.  Dent,  Aberdeen,  S.  D. 
Governor  Frank  M.  Bryue,  Pierre,  S.  D. 
Lieutenant-Governor  Peter  Norbeck,  Redfield,  S.  D. 
J.  W.  Harris,  Mobridge,  S.  D. 
I.  D.  Aldrich,  Big  Stone  City,  S.  D. 

183 


L.  L.  Stevens,  Pierre,  S.  D. 
George  V.  Ayers,  Deadwood,  S.  D. 
Thomas  H.  Brown,  Belle  Fourche,  S.  D. 
J.  W.  Harris,  Mobridge,  S.  D. 
C.  N.  Herreid,  Aberdeen,  S.  D. 

North  Dakota 
Appointed  by  Governor  of  North  Dakota  for  Peace  Congress. 
Hon.  R.  B.  Griffith,  Grand  Forks,  N.  D. 
Hon.  J.  S.  Johnson,  Christine,  N.  D. 
Hon.  C.  J.  Lord,  Cando,  N.  D. 
Hon.  H.  U.  Thomas,  Oberon,  N.  D. 
Hon.  S.  H.  Sleeper,  Mohall,  N.  D. 

New  York 
Appointed  by  Auburn  Chamber  of  Commerce. 
Hon.  E.  Clarence  Aiken,  c/o  Attorney-General's  Office,  Albany,  N.  Y. 
Rev.  Sidney  L.  Gulick,  105  E.  22nd  Street,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

West  Virginia 

Mr.  H.  P.  Corcoran. 

Texas 

Mrs.  N.  E.  Thorne,  1402  W.  Avenue,  Austin,  Texas. 

Michigan 

John  Ralph  Hile,  Hillsdale,  Mich. 

Washington 

A.  C.  Herback,  417  2nd  Avenue,  S.  W.,  Payallup,  Wash. 
Albert  E.  Jones,  Seattle,  Wash. 

Pennsylvania 

J.  A.  Scheffer  245  N.  6th  Street,  AUentown,  Pa. 

Mrs.  W.  P.  Barndoller,  500  Chestnut  Street,  Everett,  Pa. 

Mr.  Albert  Votaw,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Illinois 

Mr.  Louis  P.  Lochner,*  116  Michigan  Avenue,  S.,  Chicago,  111. 
Mr.  F.  Emery  Lyon,  1245  Monon  Building,  Chicago,  111. 
Mrs.  Jean  Wallace  Bullis,  422  S.  Hoyne  Avenue,  Chicago,  111. 
Mr.  Henry  C.  Morris.* 

Maryland 
Representing  the  W.  C.  T.  U.  of  Maryland. 
Mrs.  William  J.  Brown,  Walbrook  P.  O.,  Md. 


■"Delegates,  Chicago  Peace  Society. 

184 


PROGRAM 

SUNDAY,  OCTOBER  10 

2:00  O'clock  P.  M. 

Greek  Theatre,  University  of  California,  Berkeley 

Opening  Session 
Rev.  Francis  J.  Van  Horn,  D.D.,  Presiding 
Pastor  First  Congregational  Church,  Oakland 

Invocation ^^^-  Edward  L.  Parsons.  D.D. 

Rector  St.  Mark's  Episcopal  Church,   Berkeley 

Addresses  of  Welcome  : 

On  Behalf  of  the  State        .         .        Governor  Hiram   W.  Johnson 
On  Behalf  of  the  City  ....        Mayor  S.  C.  Irving 

Response  on  Behalf  of  the  Delegates        .         .        Mr.  Arthur  D.  Call 
Secretary  American  Peace  Society,  Washington,  D.  C. 

"The  Way  to  Lasting  Peace'' — President's  Address 

David  Starr  Jordan,  LL.D. 
Chancellor  Stanford  University 

"What  Makes  a  Nation  Great"        .        Rev.  Frederick  Lynch.  D.D. 
Secretary  Church  Peace  Union,  New  York 

"Internationalism  and  Democracy"        .        James  A.  Macdonald,  LL.D. 
Editor  Toronto  Globe,  Canada 

"The  Patriotism   of  Peace"        .         .        Rev.  Matt  S.  Hughes,  D.D. 
Pastor  First  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,   Pasadena 

SUNDAY  EVENING 

7:45  O'CLOCK 

The  Tabernacle,  Van  Ness  Avenue  and  Bush  Street 

San  Francisco 
Topic:     The  Church  and  Peace 
Dr.  Frederick  Lynch,  Presiding 

Invocation Rev.  H.  B.  Johnson,  D.D. 

Superintendent  Pacific  Japanese  Missions,  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 

"The  Catholic  Church  and  Peace" 

Most  Rev.  Edward  J.  Hanna,  D.D. 

Archbishop  of   San  Francisco 
185 


"Old  Gloty,  the  Flag  of  Hope  for  the  World's  Peace*-" 

Miss  Eva  Marshall  Shontz,  Chicago 
Organizer  for  the  Woman's  Peace  Party 

"The  Epic  of  Peace''        .        .        .        Rahhi  Martin  A.  Meyer,  Ph.D. 
Minister   Emanu-El   Congregation,   San   Francisco 

"The  International  Christ''        .        .        .        Dr.  James  A.  McDonald 


MONDAY.  OCTOBER  11 

10:00  O'clock  A.  M. 

Court  of  the  Universe,  Exposition  Grounds 

Joint  Meeting  With  World's  Insurance  Congress 

Mr.  Rolla  V.  Watt,  Presiding 
Manager  Royal  Insurance  Company,  Limited 

Invocation        .        .        .        Rt.   Rev.    Win.   Ford  Nichols,  D.D.,  LL.D. 
Bishop   San  Francisco  Diocese,   Episcopal  Church 

Addresses  of  Welcome: 

On  Behalf  of  the  City        .        .        .        Mayor  James  Ralph,  Jr. 
On  Behalf  of  the  Exposition        .        .        .        President  C.  C.  Moore 

Presentation  of  Exposition  Medal. 

"War,  Business  and  Insurance"        .        .        Dr.  David  Starr  Jordan 

"North  America's  International  Experiment" 

Dr.  James  A.  McDonald 

MONDAY  AFTERNOON 

2:00  O'clock 

Festival  Hall,  Exposition  Grounds 

Joint  Meeting  With  World's  Insurance  Congress 
Dr.  Starr  Jordan,  Presiding 

"Effects  of  the  World  War  on  Central  and  South  America" 

Hon.  Walter  Scott  Pen  field,  Washington 
American  Secretary  of  The  Hague  Court  in 
Pious  Fund  Arbitration 

186 


"The  League  to  Enforce  Peace" 

Hon.  Francis  B.  Loontis,  Oakland 
Former  Assistant  Secretary  of  State 

"The  Exposition  and  World  Peace" 

Mr.  Herbert  S.  Houston,  New  York 
Vice-President  Doubleday,  Page  &  Co. 

MONDAY  EVENING 

8:00  O'clock 

Civil  Auditorium,  San  Francisco 

Topic:   War  and  the  Workers 

Mr.  Will  J.  French,  San  Francisco,  Presiding 

Commissioner  State  Industrial  Accident  Board 

"Fundamental  Causes  of  War" 

Mr.   Walter  MacArthur,  San  Francisco 
"World  Organization"        .         .        Senator  Henri  La  Fontaine,  Belgium 

President  International  Peace  Bureau,  Berne 
"Why  Labor   Opposes   War"        .        .         .        Mr.  James   W.   Mullen 

Editor  Labor  Clarion,  San  Francisco 
"A  Plea  for  Constructive  Action" 

Mtne.  Rosika  Schwimmer,  Budapest,  Hungary 
Vice-Chairman  International  Committee  of  Women 
for  Permanent  Peace 

TUESDAY,  OCTOBER  12 

9:30  O'clock  A.  M. 

Civic  Auditorium,  San  Francisco 

Topic:    Education  and  Peace 

M.  E.  Dailey,  LL.D.,  Presiding 

President  State  Normal  School,  San  Jose 

Invocation  Prof.  E.  A.  Wicker,  D.D. 

San  Francisco  Theological  Seminary 
"Science  and  Peace"       .       Dr.  John  Mes,  recently  of  Munich,  Germany 

President  International  Federation  of  Students 

"International    Misunderstandings"        .         .         Mr.   Kiyo   Sue   Inui 

Lecturer  for  the  Japan  Society  of  America 

187 


"A  Guiding  Principle  for  Our  Foreign  Policy'' 

Professor  George  M.  Stratton 
University  of  California 
"Military   Training  in   Schools"        .        .        Mr.  Louis  P.  Lochner 
Secretary  Chicago  Peace  Society 

TUESDAY  NOON 

12:00  O'clock 

The  American  Peace  Society  will  act  as  host  at  a  Buffet  Luncheon  to 
be  served  in  Hall  C-2  of  the  Civic  Auditorium.  Regular  members  of  the 
Congress  will  receive  a  card  of  admission  at  the  time  of  registration. 

TUESDAY  AFTERNOON 

2 :00  O'clock 

Civic  Auditorium,  San  Francisco 

Topic:     Women  and  War 

Mrs.  John  F.  Merrill,  San  Francisco,  Presiding 

"The  Call  of  Old  Glory  for  Heroism" 

Miss  Eva  Marshall  Shontz 

"America's  Danger  and  Opportunity^' 

Mrs.  Lucia  Ames  Mead,  Boston 
National   Secretary  Woman's  Peace   Party 
"The  International  Congress  of  Women  at  The  Hague" 

Miss  Chrystal  McMillan,  London,  England 
Secretary  International  Committee  of  Women  for  Permanent  Peace 

TUESDAY    EVENING 

8:00  O'clock 

Civic  Auditorium,  San  Francisco 

Topic:    Some  Aspects  of  Our  International  Relations 

H.  H.  Guy,  Ph.D.,  Presiding 

President  Japan  Society  of  America 

"World  Unity:    The  Goal  of  Human  Progress" 

Mirza  AH  Kuli  Khan 

Commissioner-General  for  Persia,  P.-P.  I.  E. 

"The  Neglected  Aspect  of  American-Japanese  Relations" 

Dr.  Yamato  Ichihashi 
Stanford  University 

188 


"The  New  Orient  and  Our  New  Oriental  Policy" 

Dr.  Sidney  L.  Gulick 

Of  the  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America 

"China's  Outlook— Peace  or  War?"         .         .         Dr.  Ng  Poon  Chew 
Editor   Chang   Sal  Yat  Po,   San  Francisco 

WEDNESDAY,  OCTOBER  13 

9:30  O'clock  A.  M. 

Fairmount  Hotel,  San  Francisco 

Joint  Meeting  of  Peace  Societies  and  Peace  Workers 

Topics :    Constructive  Work  for  Peace 

The  Problem  of  Preparedness 

Our  Duty  in  the  Present  Situation 

Mr.  Henry  C.  Morris,  Presiding 

President  Chicago  Peace  Society,  Former  United  States  Consul 

at  Ghent,   Belgium 

Invocation Rabbi  Martin  A.  Meyer 

Discussion  Introduced  by 

Senator  Henri  La  Fontaine        Mr.  Arthur  D.  Call        Dr.  John  Mez 

Dr.  Charles  S.  Macfarland,  New  York 

General  Secretary  Federal  Council  of  the  Churches  of 

Christ  in   America 

Professor  G.   E.   Uyehara,  D.Sc. 

Department   of    Political    Science,   Meiji   University, 

Tokyo,   Japan 

Preliminary  Report  of  Committee  on  Platform 

WEDNESDAY  AFTERNOON 

2:00  O'clock 

Civic  Auditorium,  San  Francisco 

Topic:     Pan-American  Relations 

Judge  W.  W.  Morrow,  Presiding 

United  States  Circuit  Court  of  Appeals,  Ninth  District 

Adoption  of  Congress  Platform 

"Pan-American  Relations"        .         .         .        Senor  Don  J.  E.  Lefevre 
Secretary  of   Panama  Legation 

189 

12 


"Two  Successful  Models  for  Pan-American  Imitation'' 

Mr.  Edward  Berwick,  Pacific  Grove 

"The  Temperate  Americas  and  the  World's  Work" 

Professor  Bailey  Willis,  Stanford  University 


WEDNESDAY  AFTERNOON 

4:30  O'clock 

CONFERENCE 

Dr.  Sidney  L,  Gulick  of  New  York  City,  representing  The  Federal 
Council  of  the  Churches  of  Christ  in  America,  held  a  conference  with  all 
the  members  of  the  Peace  Makers'  Committee,  whom  he  addressed  on 
"The  Best  Methods  of  Carrying  on  Peace  Work  in  the  Churches." 


WEDNESDAY  EVENING 

8:00  O'clock 

Civic  Auditorium,  San  Francisco 

Peace  Centenary  Celebration 

Commemorating 

one    hundred    years    of    peace    among    ENGLISH-SPEAKING 

peoples    and    a    century    of    organized    peace    work 
Mr.  Henry  C.  Morris,  Chicago,  Presiding 
(Fill  in  Themes) 

"The  Navy  as  a  Peace  Society" 

Col.  Robert  M.  Thompson,  New  York 

Rev.  Frederick  Lynch,  D.D 

"A  Forward   Look"        .         .        Mr.  Herbert  S.   Houston,  New   York 

"A  Hundred  Years  of  Organized  Peace  Work" 

Mr.  Arthur  D.  Call,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Miss  Eva  Marshall  Shonts,  Chicago. 

"The  Treaty  of  Ghent  and  the  Hundred  Years  of  Peace" 

Bishop  Edwin  Holt  Hughes,  San  Francisco. 

Miss  Chrystal  McMillan,  London,  England 

Hon.  James  A.  McDonald,  LL.D. 

"A  Resume" Chancellor  David  Starr  Jordan 

190 


Series  9482 


yn 


m^ 


sm\i 


V 


O     AilSa3AINn   3H1     O 


0    viNSOjnvD  JO   o  ^ 


o   SANTA  BARBARA   "> 


JLJZ—J 


o  io  Adviian  3H1  o 


\ 


3  1205  00509  9864 


>L 


viNdOjnvo  JO   o 


THE  LIBRARY  OF    o 


O     OF  CALIFORNIA     o 


o    JO  AaVMn  3H1    o. 


